X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:55:07 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user]
	Project leadership
In-Reply-To:	<CAM2RGhTqdCf9=tHW0hJmshknh8RWFYNxLFA4gJ6ogFkZm9BF4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1512300647530.9035@igor2priv>
References:	<CAM2RGhS4L-ch6FEcLtdSt0vA0BdQZvq+AuFDP+9ea7Ftd=AALg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300544550 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <A06FE370-5416-41F5-BBAA-BCF0D975DDD3 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTqdCf9=tHW0hJmshknh8RWFYNxLFA4gJ6ogFkZm9BF4w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version:	1.0
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 Wed, 30 Dec 2015, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:14 AM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2015, at 9:54 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>
>>> After actually hacing gschem, I realized your idealistic view on how good the foundations are is just a dream.
>>
>> It?s not perfect but that isn?t a reason to make it worse. It?s pretty good compared to a lot of software.
>
> Igor2 why are we doing this? Suppose for a minute we somehow got John
> to concede defeat what would we really have won here?

I really think there are some basic concepts went wrong in geda/gschem 
(about networks, how much gschem should know about attributes and flows, 
whether gschem->gnetlist should be unidirectional).

I really believe that one day these should be talked over. By those who 
understand how the whole thing works and are capable of making the 
necessary modifications.

I think this can not happen as long as John loudly blocks any attempt in 
this direction. I don't say it will happen instantly if John stopped this, 
but I am pretty sure it won't until that. It's just that any attempt on 
any useful discussion on this rapidly sinks into the "toolkit vs. 
integrated" agenda pushed by him and people lose interest.

I think the way forward is to convince John to make a fork. This would 
relieve him from having to watch for change proposals on the mailing list 
and would relieve potential programmers from the noise and derailed 
threads. (I'm still laughing at that he takes even pcb-related ideas as 
direct threat to gschem.)

- Raw text -