Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/07/09/13:45:47
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> This is the death spiral gEDA is stuck in. Main line development is so slow
>> that (essentially) private forks are more attractive, which in turn slows
>> development more, etc.
>
> To be fair a lot of people were contributing stuff that was really not
> very cleanly done. The developers should have asked them to make it
> less hairy but there was never a nice way to say it nicely.
There's another side of the coin. If you have a largeish code base with
totally incosistent identation, requiring basically anything about
indentation from rare contributors will not make the code look better but
will drive contributors away.
The story is totally different if you take the code first and clean it up
on this aspect and _then_ make requirements.
It's a random example only, but I think it demonstrates my point. If
there's no clear roadmap and development is slow and random,
(actively or passively) refusing patches because of hairiness is probably
worse than just include (almost) anything. I don't know much about gschem,
I am mostly talking about PCB here.
Btw, this problem is pretty irrelevant by now: it was a problem
many years ago. Nowdays the major problem, as far as I understand, is that
there's literally noone who even decides about patches.
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -