X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:03:01 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: 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-user] GTK3, Glade interface designer (router, auto?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20151003210701 DOT de392b925f54dadb0a5fedd8 AT gmail DOT com> <1443903758 DOT 1873 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <56104A0A DOT 9020507 AT xs4all DOT nl> <1443909591 DOT 1873 DOT 18 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <1443975731 DOT 671 DOT 52 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20151004191717 DOT bf8223417541a9306bfbd9ea AT gmail DOT com> <1443997480 DOT 2068 DOT 32 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <1444070851 DOT 1014 DOT 20 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > Stefan Salewski wrote: > >> The real hard part is, that people really do not like autorouters >> generally, > > I don't like auto routers which fail on my boards ;-) > My biggest concern with what the toporouter could demonstrably do is that > it is/was a game of all or nothing. You could not tell the router to > restrict itself to some routes picked by me. And more troublesome, it was > not able to play nice with tracks and vias already put in place by me. > Both are hard deal breakers for me. > > >> and most really do not like curved traces. >> Anthony already wrote that most people told him that. > > Well, I remember quite some "awsome!" shouts on the list every time the > toporouter produced some new results. > > We did not do a poll on whether people like or dislike topo router style > traces back then. And Igors2 question was in no way a proper poll on > peoples priorities for the direction of future development, either. I obviously disagree here. I think my poll was proper for pcb-rnd. I'm really sorry if it didn't bring the result you wanted (but note: you didn't even vote). We had step 1 and 2 for many years on the mailing list. I did step3 for a selected set of features (so that things I wouldn't have the bandwidth to do wouldn't get voted on - this why push & shove did not show up). I did implement the top 3 items within 1 month after the poll. I recommend the same process to happen for pcb and gschem. If there's literally noone who has the time and will to sit down and code push & shove, it just won't happen, no matter how formally you vote. On the other hand if you ignore what the user base wants, you end up with dead ends like guile/scheme in gschem. Regards, Igor2