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:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=URWKrV4oKwMHOEaZD8/1f6int5wJQDbx1Yi6EbgWSXM=;
        b=KvQOrE6ZZoJ9eb08L1uHtQFsIJ9zy34hpCvIevRFArcw+/WmRuKq/UEzknFnxy1vVl
         xevWhM/cFMseYIN2gvg9RxE1P9xiRNcktgnPqoxy1Xq/0nBH+o/ilOJ1EG1I3SQH1Jyg
         HBupvQtu5zzoZ9GjndMBIq1R90F2FMmzDRAy/FfrctsgJzRNLPDCTb7VG5QlLUVy/pDS
         DN3jxq1+IGgkyJFfluDx5Ub5Gc9T1cIcX6MvPDerqoBwv/oMxW9bghekc5JHlSFSYzEy
         Z4/csFE2Ywl63hwtcfD3Ma/EZ/f8TXGwTA2jJsiyK4RnywhLX8wjCL82pS5qRxKchAZr
         AFlA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.116.73 with SMTP id ju9mr6241639wjb.108.1444295109194;
 Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:05:09 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMvDHVC=5ro99pDFn=fpFx1vzWhyqzNab-yU39t0szAgOeMEnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [geda-user] Some gschem issues
From: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <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

On 10/8/15, Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 22:00 +0300, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com)
> [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> Ugly for example is, that menu still offers actions
>> > which are not available in current state.
>> Could you name them?
>
> There are many for gschem 1.9.1. For example select a line. Then in Edit
> Menu menu item Edit... in not greyed out to show that it is not
> available. I have often selected that thinking that I can change width
> or other properties. There is much more of this. I know that it not easy
> to avoid such behaviour, and for power users it is not a big problem,
> they know that. For people who do use it maybe once per year it is not
> that nice. But the most important point: It shows that there is no love
> and care in gschem development. For a tool that is nearly 20 years old,
> and where many people spent thousands of hours in development, there is
> no really excuse for that. And when you say patches welcome: For such
> points, which are really easy to fix for current active developers, I am
> not willing to provide patches. Maybe I even would, if I could be
> absolutely sure that the patch really made it into the program. But I
> can not be sure.

For me 1.9.1 is a very fuzzy version :) since I almost always use
the last githead and it changed over the time after that release.
For now, I can say wehave experimental new changes in 1.9.2 being
in flux. They have to settle first.

AIUI, the 'Edit...' menu worked and should work for all primitive
objects. Say,for lines it could bring up the sidebar with their
properties if it was closed.Special Edit shortkeys could do the
same and change focus to appropriate settings. I, for one, don't
want to like anything not discussed yet if it doesn't bother me
very much. As you can see in this example, even such small changes
you think are easy to fix could require this. Moreover, such
discussions in the list tend to get lost if nobody cares to file a
bug report. While I try to mark interesting things in my mailbox,
I have my own priorities wrt what to consider to be interesting or
necessary.

As to 'I could be absolutely sure', I would say, nobody could.
The patch may be buggy, bit-rotten, or just not accepted, for
developers wanted to remove/rewrite this part completely. At the
time I had no commit access, I just filed bug reports with my
patches attached on Launchpad and was waiting for them to be
accepted. They mostly did.

>
> Another point: In older gschem, when saving symbols it was necessary to
> move it to origin before saving. I forgot it multiple times, resulting
> in misaligned symbols, not really easy to fix for non experts. That was
> discussed on the list many years ago. Trivial to fix for someone
> familiar with the code. I think it was not fixed in 1.8, maybe it is
> now.

Yup, '... for someone familiar with the code...'

*Sigh*

BTW, sometimes I prefer to have origin in the center of a symbol.

Cheers,
  Vladimir