X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=ZLCYpQYDHFNsBWptpqo8IpTcb03a0oX4ejdRCvEa4H0=;
	b=1Kbp/CxzxenSgLTDks1CQzbznKn173ehaIT4sJ8nsT01End5EizUoTtdNBLvxvy6re
	X2HIB7UTFadxsCKOTcxtXC36aS0LOgC6QtEdDHF/3br4GTQ51BrLba9cAnjY7OPjrai0
	rlxeg4iAuKNB75/+rM0MeS0GRaSmD6Zm/gHk4bCkoK3dmRC0KrkHv0jtyYmL/r2STM9I
	tWnvQhAs8iozyGrUTW4dPSRl+XKe+hh/s3iHt406g3JTaONjn0f2Qww7AlunGoxbQuZs
	doPrKNMGclPRll59CaXKJ1RUxvcALJ7HWw5CXUfAQfZhw8/c/G5aP1C6f5DP4jq9l4Ix
	y1KA==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.180.109.231 with SMTP id hv7mr8414972wib.7.1440545255748;
	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAM2RGhQMUdE_Z6OnJPTgTbkcQ4fWp6rGnrXib48S71tsGmMMSw@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<55D8D8B8 DOT 7050907 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<CAM2RGhSZ1vi_DFKqZdZYxhto4ZaXLLscBt5m5kk+PH2ZoYW_vw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508230609370 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<55D9BDC7 DOT 4000608 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508231450350 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<CAM2RGhSC6UfCr8ixF5iuffmUhcdgVuz9nA+YjiZNk8-f7Q5r-A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508231935040 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<CAC4O8c8PyLQNgxz1SP-98ZhyH5KPDmnNpiULVvdL+TMo-DhN4w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508240407100 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<CAC4O8c_HdSL-3+etrvPozAZuqUX-Rqx4FGACkchttRkZsFhYPA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhQMUdE_Z6OnJPTgTbkcQ4fWp6rGnrXib48S71tsGmMMSw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:27:35 -0800
Message-ID:	<CAC4O8c8N53Yf=AXwNhVYX=NJ_ua5gKVD4zBipTHsrFcaFRbt-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Antifork
From:	"Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Britton Kerin
> (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:29 PM,  <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via
>>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately no one is going to be nearly so well positioned to merge
>>>> your
>>>> stuff as you are.  Relatively, it will be painfully inefficient for
>>>> them and they
>>>> will feel it as they work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately no one is as unmotivated to invest time in this as I am. This
>>> won't happen, sorry.
>>
>> I take it you acknowledge that no one can do it as easily as you.  But
>> I guess you
>> also feel that since others don't want to bother much, there's no
>> reason you should
>> bother or use build/vcs you dislike.
>
> I know we would all like Igor2 to do what *we* want but isn't it
> enought that he is gifting us with code that is written around our
> project? The answer is no and we should respect that he does not want
> to carry us. Surely someone else can look at his VCS commits, do some
> diffs and make some patches. The mission for those people (including
> me) who want PCB to stay around should be to figure out how to do
> this, not how to control someone else's time.

It's not a matter of controlling his time, but of who can do the work
efficiently.  Merging other people's code is both time-wise inefficient
and much more likely to create nasty bugs than if they do it themselves.
The sad thing is that apparently Igor once wanted to, and has since
decided that he's determined not to.  Reasons for the change appear
to include aversion to DVCS and autoconf.

>> Suppose someone else did do the work to merge it this time, would you feel then
>> feel more or less inclined to use common build system etc. and generally
>> design-for-mergability in the future?
>
> I don't think the build system is the real issue in mergability but a
> fair point.
>
>>>> The reason everyone is so worked up about this particular fork is that it
>>>> has
>>>> the most interesting new features in a long time.  I'll take another run
>>>> at
>>>> testing it soon.  But I agree with others that to give up on merging it is
>>>> very sad, especially when the problems are things like VCS and build
>>>> system,
>>>> that don't even have anything to do with the core functionality.
>>>
>>> I didn't give up on the merge: I never intended to push it in the first
>>> place. It's totally indifferent for me as I am not an user of the mainline
>>> pcb. If anyone decides to merge whichever part he likes, that's fine. If he
>>> has questions about why/how some parts are implemented, I'm happy to
>>> explain.
>>>
>>> Forks may have different purposes. Some forks are created by the author in
>>> hope that he can merge it back to mainline, some are not.
>>
>> I guess if you're correct that nothing worthwhile to you will happen
>> in mainline pcb ever again, you have the right approach.  Otherwise its a loss
>> for you as well as everyone else.
>>
>> My fantasy when I heard about ruby scripting in pcb was that perhaps Stefan's
>> router might someday see the light of day afterall.  Oh well
>
> I keep seeing mentions of this legendary router. I have been these
> gEDA lists +10 years but I don't remember it. What was the big appeal
> if it?

It's a non-orthogonal router with good performance metrics.  The description is
academic but it looks not too hard to add keep-out areas, additional costs to
the cost functions, etc.  I don't know how far Stefan ever got with
those real-life
features.  I've lost the paper its based on but it was fairly readable.

Britton

- Raw text -