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=tU79bvXZ4SR4H0P/FkMI1ihLhaK6yftV6qdSt29Au34=; b=mRWJ+6nRpQDrYh8uC2dGCKNPJ33KBkPwkXxBP7gk4KklPGZy+Z1EyOu5jczE5p7eP6 OorZstA77DeRXizQu55fDvJQW6VdO52BWO62ZWOOe05Pb1klxsJjqcWV6q7mnth7L01p uOjgZvE23b/hOoAjwX8zRrDCHlDkA08B0t3WHuexNIlavcnkDXOv3HUj/0K+PV7ZHspl gJ9/7oQ6EijM0T5zcmZV4sEZvbXDUNQhGuRI0Ia3V++1llu3BEp5UWKlh3N6ILMlG/LY BztHUZOCiCoCga0xtw00/mth+0D7saA0Hmz8MwoBaWmyIWkUAdms1IVxihe9l/Y0ucs6 1mmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.58.167 with SMTP id s7mr44638772wjq.38.1436559790673; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:23:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:23:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: developer excitement? was Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:33 AM, wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >>> >>> >>> My specific answer in case of PCB: >>> >>> - DVCS kills point 1. and 3. for me. It often kills 4. too, but in case >>> of >>> PCB I couldn't ever see a clear roadmap since I started to use it in the >>> mid >>> 2000s. >> >> >> You should really try again on DVCS. Its just totally better and the >> world >> isn't going back, don't shut yourself out of having fun on 90% of new >> software. > > > You automatically assume DVCS is the future and centralized VCS is the past, It more observation than assumption at this point. > and anything newer must be better, so it must be more fun for me. I do have I started with CVS, eagerly learned SVN but thought mixed revisions were undesirable, and when I tried git there seemed little contest. Its not just that it's newer, I happily use lots of ancient things because I think them better than more recent offerings (gtk, make, etc.). > a long list of _technical_ arguments why I prefer centralized VCS, but > honestly, I don't want to waste my time if you already have such an image > about DVCS. Since VCS doesn't do anything that DVCS can't do, I'm guessing these arguments are all going to fall into the "it causes people to do convoluted things" category. You may be right that DVCS has contributed to gEDAs forking problem, but its certainly not the only cause and VCS wouldn't solve the problem at this point. >>> - In practice this means random people are working in random branches on >> >> >> This is certainly true of gEDA but not because of DVCS. > > > Your view. Mine is switching from DVCS to a centralized one would be the > first step to clean up the mess. We probably won't ever agree on this, and I > accept this; and do you? If I must, but (at least rough) consensus is always nice if possible. Did you take a look at Fossil that got mentioned in the other thread? It sounds to me like it addresses many of the things that bother people about git. >>> version of PCB that I choose was mature enough. >> >> >> This is the death spiral gEDA is stuck in. Main line development is so >> slow >> that (essentially) private forks are more attractive, which in turn slows >> development more, etc. > > > For me, this is the vitality spiral of gEDA. If I didn't make that PCB fork, > I may have switched to kicad or whatever else, or if not, I would surely be > considering that move by now. > > I admit I am selfish, but having a PCB version that does what I want is more > important than trying to push a version that's only getting farther and > farther away from my needs. Since in either case I wouldn't contribute and > wouldn't keep using the software long term, I don't even see how this makes > any difference or induces a death spiral. Here's the thing with new features: even *one* of them that is really useful to you will probably induce you to tolerate some learning and problems related to others that aren't. If you get the new code together into a single release everything gets widely distributed and tested. You might even end up liking some of those features that at first annoyed you. Most projects proceed this way. gEDA has gone in an entirely other direction with massive forking and very little integration. "Death spiral", that was a negative, frustrated term. I retract it. But you have to agree that its pretty sad that we've ended up with approximately one symbol-to-part mapping system per user, piles of potentially useful code languishing untested in branches, and endless, mostly fruitless discussions of what might be done about the situation. > So what's the deal here? Either everyone joins forces to work on something > suboptimal, and then it's all great and joy, or people work on their own and Well, if your private board production system with PCB is actually optimal, I guess you're right, but mine is far from it and there are lots of things I can imaging PCB doing better. My infrastructure for handling symbol->part etc. works ok but I don't think you're properly accounting for the time that's getting wasted in reinvention even of that relatively simple stuff. DJ seems open to the idea of some kind of more aggressively integrated branch, so if we had a (D)VCS that wouldn't cause anyone to run screaming, someone willing and able to manage it, and some people to test out of it something might happen. Britton