Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/11/17:22:09
On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:58 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> And you don't understand that this is a cause for worry for users
>> who have actual jobs that need to get done?
>
> Of course I understand, and of course I worry. Such changes shouldn't
> be taken lightly, but that doesn't mean they should never be changed
> either.
>
> Your position is very one-sided - you think nothing should change that
> effects existing users.
No, not really. I tried to get the attribute censorship bug fixed, but the core developers of the time had that position, so the refactoring we ultimately came up with didn’t actually fix the bug. The worry was that a fix could change some behavior that was not only undefined but difficult for the user to predict. I like stability, but not *that* much.
> While that's a valid position for you, it's
> not a valid position on which to base development. This isn't a
> problem specific to gEDA either, EVERY software package update brings
> risks. You, as a user, can choose whether to upgrade or not.
Not if you’re collaborating. That’s another thing that bugs me: the model that gEDA users are hermits.
> We, as
> developers, can choose to support you or not. If we find something
> that needs to be changed, that breaks one user but opens the way to
> major new functionality that would benefit lots of users, we would be
> hard pressed to justify not making the needed change.
I won’t disagree completely with that, but letting the pcb tail wag the gschem dog is something that could do a lot more damage than you can imagine.
.
>
> Your position is also weakened by the fact that this is Free Software.
> You have the right to make a copy of the code, modify it (or not) as
> you wish, use it as you wish, and share it with others. Given that
> you - the "one user" in this case - has a workaround (don't upgrade),
> the developers are more likely to decide in favor of the needed change.
The hermit model again.
>
> Your position is further weaked by the fact that we are *volunteers*.
> Our personal reasons for contributing do not always align with yours.
> While we like to consider ourselves philanthropic, most of us work on
> this software for selfish personal reasons.
So do I. But things like gnet-spice-noqsi have *zero* impact on what you’re doing. That’s a consequence of good factoring. If you keep demonstrating that you don’t appreciate this, I consider your attitude a threat.
> If our direction affects
> your paycheck, keep in mind that it does not affect *ours* (or if it
> does, not in the same way). If you don't have a support contract with
> someone, you're avenues for redress are limited to cooperative ones
> that others will accept. We're certainly willing to cooperate for the
> greater good, but telling us we have to do something or *you* don't
> get paid, won't endear us to do it.
>
> So yes, I worry. We try to solve the most problems for the most
> people. Sometimes you're not one of the people.
I don’t expect you to solve my problems. I hope that you’ll respect that the gEDA universe is very much larger than you perceive as a geda-pcb specialist. Unfortunately, I think what you mean by “most of the people” is limited to geda-pcb users, when the toolkit can do so much more.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -