Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/06/04:30:51
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> Igor2 started this fork because people were unwilling to accept his
>> contributions. Looking back the same people drove me out too. Lets not
>> start that again.
> And because he prefers to stand apart from the community requiring the
> majority to follow his preferences in order to collaborate.
Neither claims are 100% true.
Evan:
I started my pcb-rnd fork mainly because pcb went in directions I didn't
like. It's fair that pcb developers go in the direction they like and it's
fair that some people don't like that direction and don't want to go
there. I didn't want to force my ideas on them so I couldn't contribute.
I indeed made some ultra small patches at some point, some of them even
ended up in mainline, and I indeed didn't like all aspects of how the
whole process went. But that alone was not the reason I decided to fork.
And before someone hurries to remind me: yes, I am aware of the fact that
policy about contribution has changed since (probably not only once).
Vladimir:
I prefer to collaborate and I often follow preferences of others. But I am
not in for blindly following things only because it's a majority
preference. I don't have gmail or facebook accounts because I don't need
them. At least 95% of computer users are probably signed up to them. But
that fact doesn't affect whether I actually need those services or not.
When I face a decision, I check the costs and benefits. If costs don't
justify the benefits, I don't take the deal. In case of pcb there were too
many bad preferneces to follow for too little benefits, so I just went my
way. I think everyone should be happy with it. I am happy, since I have a
piece of software that does what I want still I didn't have to invest 10
years developing it. PCB developers should be happy because I didn't join
them trying to inject my preferences. PCB users should be happy because
there is a mostly compatible alternative with a slightly different set of
features.
About gschem and back annotation: I'm about halfway into the the
gschem-side support already. Before I finally started coding it yesterday
morning, I've spent 5 days trying to work out a collaborative solution
where benefits justify the costs. I think I made reasonable efforts and
made a rational decision. I know you probably disagree. I regard that 5
days mostly wasted time (except for two things: Evan's help and a really
good ideas/insight from you).
I just don't want to spend weeks on politics, then 4..10x more time on
developmnet due to scheme, another bunch of overhead on git, and then
weeks, months or years of merging/rebasing/call-it-what-you-want my code
against mainline, and hope that eventually someone is going to pick it up
and put it in mainline. Geda dev community probably offer good deals for a
lot of developers, so the community grows and lives happily, I guess. My
preferences are unusual, and it does not offer me a good deal. There's no
point in forcing collaboration when it just wouldn't work. There's also no
point in blaming any party. We have to accept people are different, and
move on.
TL;DR:
I prefer to collaborate when it is worth, and stand apart when that
makes more sense. I know this sort of thinking is pretty radical nowdays
when users click and accept contracts without reading even the first
paragraph.
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -