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=8fvWxUbBANAt435d2h8pdD7QhXKUwQitsdXgLZujFcs=;
	b=brWkGh6LqEQ1M5oSWGLToUlZ8A0QrocyFPUbFrIvYRzw0b6tb1+vzlyImcZZYrusM2
	78cJHyfThKoKUuDK6rJiWhrl34ijng8eWkkTOVecJ8kCnV9h2eqpYi8mBmPQP3TQDwaT
	BHoxmGU3VuWzL6ktab/ggjFL8gu0DoF0tlqXwWArLiEC0+z4tNLMAcgRcRgZUZLkC5Yg
	d4ugbEg/ufL9DnCF7RJXsfkHblpydFu52gOk20aOZs3/ptg/F+5O4zX/tebcEq9DkueP
	w/etMYRK7CCv+vjdfjLqEtNRyXFL1I2oTpooYgMCHUaMsjWIx2DKNqHwe7N4Qws7fmkK
	ihYw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.152.21.37 with SMTP id s5mr44332107lae.2.1436125284729; Sun,
	05 Jul 2015 12:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<559985B3.8070507@iae.nl>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CA+KzSgJM1U3vtxbH+9biKkpF+cp92Ts4jqZaKnr=QMgO+JaYoQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhQ66bFjU-sXyrmHp7rT6weRKiA0VxeAOxriXcG0ByNx=g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<559985B3 DOT 8070507 AT iae DOT nl>
Date:	Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:41:24 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhSavjxN0e6skCk8=48ojy1PNMJ1A-KsEHMgBLP7-NBUcw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

Karl, "rigger" was meant to refer to the issues with PCB and it's architecture.

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:29 PM, myken <myken AT iae DOT nl> wrote:
>> Perhaps. I wonder how many people will take it as a call to action though?
>
>
> I would like to. And believe me I tried, but I get lost every time. Without
> any clear architectural/structure document telling me where is what and why,
> there is a steep learning curve. The dual use of C and scheme doesn't help
> in this regard. I tried contributing to PCB but that one doesn't seem to
> have a architecture at all. Don't be offended, I am probably not smart
> enough to grasp it.
>
> I have been following this tread with great interest, there is a lively
> debate on which language is better, but for me the programming language
> isn't the biggest problem, getting a clear view on the structure of a
> program (gschem,PCB,gerbv,...) is.
>
> I wonder how many new developers have joined the last 5 years and made a
> substantial contribution to the source code.
> If there are many than I am really not smart enough and you should disregard
> this message :-)
>
> Cheers, Robert.
>
>
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Mitch Davis
>> (mjd+geda-user AT hackvana DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
>> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
>>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is
>>>>> nearly death is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite
>>>> strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around!
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe that was his intention.  If so, seems to have worked.
>>>
>>> (grumble troll grumble)
>>>
>>> Mitch.
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -