Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/11/19:09:04
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:21:49PM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>
> 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.
>
+1
And where are those devs now? :-(
> > 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.
+1
Who are those devs who decided the direction we are moving now?
The geda-gaf moving to xorn seems to be a behind-the-scenes decision of
some pcb devs. Where is collaboration here? Who did ask active geda-gaf
developers? Who did ask users? Look, I don't use IRC, probably I've
missed something happened last time... (?)
> .
> >
> > 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.
+1
> > 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.
+1
Cheers,
Vladimir
- Raw text -