X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com From: Peter TB Brett Subject: Re: [geda-user] Ugly tiny bugs Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:21:33 +0100 Lines: 76 Message-ID: <87wqm20xlu.fsf@harrington.peter-b.co.uk> References: <1380306419 DOT 2601 DOT 5 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box> <87bo3e2go4 DOT fsf AT harrington DOT peter-b DOT co DOT uk> <1380312024 DOT 2601 DOT 28 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet AT ger DOT gmane DOT org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc4-oxfd23-2-0-cust628.4-3.cable.virginmedia.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3v+DthZ1uVX2maSgfvDfCGSoEwI= Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stefan Salewski writes: > No. I guess for such obvious bugs that is not really useful. Well, no, actually it is very useful. For example, there are parts of gschem that I don't ever use (e.g. slotting) so if I^Hsomeone broke them even in a very obvious way, I wouldn't notice very quickly. > Maybe nobody has time to fix it, maybe power users know how to live with > such bugs, maybe it is really hard to fix it, maybe someone already > fixed it, but the fix made it not in the official release. > > It is not a real problem for me, I am not a registered gEDA developer. > And of course I am very busy. If it's enough of a problem to whinge on the mailing list about it, it's a real bug. I'm sure several people will be able to confirm that I do, in fact, attempt to fix bugs, when they are actually reported in a reasonably descriptive way. However, I'm not necessarily able to fix every bug immediately. Filing a bug report makes sure that there is a record that allows me to come back to it later. Here's a guide to how you know whether you should post a bug report: 1) I tried it and it did what I expected. -> Don't post a bug report. 2) I tried it and it did something, but not what I expected. The behaviour did match the documentation, though. -> Don't report a bug unless the documented behaviour is REALLY STUPID. 3) I tried it and it did something, but not what I expected. The behaviour didn't match the documentation. -> Post a bug report. 4) I tried it and it didn't work. -> Post a bug report. 5) I feel like writing a vague e-mail to the mailing list about how gschem is horribly broken and bad for beginners. -> Don't do that, post a bug report. Basically, if it's bothering you enough to be worth writing an e-mail about, it's worth filing a bug report. Otherwise you're just wasting (a) bandwidth and (b) every mailing list subscriber's time. Onto the actual bug: It's an artefact of the fact gschem doesn't have a real state machine. Same underlying reason that you can crash gschem by the following procedure: select something, begin placing a net, press "Ctrl+X". Fixing this is in my (rather lengthy) backlog. Please click this link and file a $%&!ing bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda/+filebug Peter =2D-=20 Dr Peter Brett --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlJF9t0ACgkQZ7Gbq7g7vpqIUwCeNtBtiqtj1ouOzs2RdCD2uumg s00AnA6qdVagPyxZhmBWNQfzv5YNzLsk =IGD+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--