Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/08/23/11:27:13
gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>
>> Am 23.08.2015 um 15:06 schrieb gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu:
>>
>>>> pcb-rnd means to replace pcb, you can use only one of both.
>>>
>>> What exactly does make you think that?
>>
>> As said, one user can use only one of both. Using pcb-rnd means to
>> abandon pcb and vice versa. One can switch 10 times a days, of
>> course, still they're exclusive.
>
>
> question: why do you think A and B are exclusive?
>
> answer: because A and B are exclusive. You can switch between using A
> and B, but they are exclusive.
>
> Nice PR!
>
> As you didn't answer the question, I'll do: they are NOT exclusive and
> you are promoting false information. pcb-rnd installs in a separate
> "namespace", doesn't interfere with any files or directories installed
> by pcb. You can install and run both of them on the same system. You
> don't even need to install it: pcb-rnd runs happily from the source tree.
>
> pcb-rnd has a compatible file format, except for a few features that
> pcb don't have (these are clearly marked in the documentation). Users
> can safely use both versions in the same time, even on the same pcb
> files as long as they refrain from using a few specific features.
>
> So much about the two projects being exclusive.
>
>> It's wishful thinking of yours to simply show up on the list here for
>> taking all gEDA/pcb users with you.
>
> False too. I am providing a pcb variant with alternative features. For
> pcb developers my project could be a great test-lab: I experiment with
> "exotic" features and collect code and experience in the project. If
> later on some of these features are to be implemented in mainline pcb,
> there's a code base or at least experiences to refer to.
>
> As they are not exclusive in any way, I don't see how one could take
> away users from the other.
>
> Sorry to say, but it seems like you hate the idea of pcb-rnd (or
> non-git forks in general?) that you make them up a threat to pcb and
> invent false claims (like pcb-rnd and pcb are exclusive) to make them
> look more scary than they are.
>
>> You forked and one ineviteable result of such a fork is that you
>> start with exactly one user and exactly one developer: yourself.
>
> That's clear. And I still say this is true for most of the "official"
> pcb forks too. You still miss my point: I really say that PCB user
> count, including all forks, be them in git or elsewere, is low. I also
> say that looking at the mailing list traffic this summer, the _active_
> users for any feature in any fork was just as low as for pcb-rnd.
>
> I can't word it more clearly. You can misunderstand or ignore it, if
> you like.
>
>>
>>> So please fix it.
>>
>> I'm not responsible for fulfilling your wishlist.
>
> Then don't blame me for forking a software to fulfill my whishlist.
> Remember: I was originally not requesting a gl fix or features
> implemented immediately in the mainline. I was acting, creating a
> fork. It was you who started to complain about some forks.
>
>>
>>> I think the major problems on this is total lack of a working team
>>> with coherent and well defined goals and the DVCS.
>>
>> It's in the nature of free software that there is no way to enforce
>> what users want and what developers work on. If there was such a
>> means, it wouldn't be free.
>
> First of all, I didn't want to enforce anything on anyone. It's
> probably the same rhetoric that makes you spread false claims about
> pcb-rnd and pcb being exclusive. I was talking about predefined,
> clear, visible-for-the-user goals set up by the developers.
>
> Second, you are pretending it was me who started complaining in this
> thread. Originally it was you complaining about why I had to fork. I
> said I had to fork because developers didn't work on things I needed.
> I see it as simple as that. I find it totally reasonable that pcb
> developers are more into other things, and I also find it totally
> reasonable that people like me maintain their forks.
>
> If you want less forks, you need to solve that problem. Or you can
> just say it's not worth, and live with the forks.
>
>>> And I still consider it a fail that you need scripts just to keep
>>> track of the forks that happen in the official VCS.
>>
>> It's the behaviour of people like you which make this script
>> neccessary. You complain about yourself.
>
> I don't complain: I do not use the git thing at all. My remark is
> rather about another, more subtle point already popping up in other
> parts of the thread: pcb doesn't seem to have a clearly identified
> mainline branch/fork/whatever from which there are regular releases,
> so in turn new versions tend not to be packaged in major distros too
> often, which in turn leads to less users. Of course, you are free to
> ignore this point too.
>
> Meanwhile I still believe a centralized VCS, clear gaols and some sort
> of project management is the only combination that can avoid forks.
>
>> And no, antifork doesn't track the official repo, it tracks forks
>> outside of it. In a user selected way, so these 100+ branches in
>> these 20+ forks don't clobber up the local clone.
>
> Good luck with merging all the code forth and back between them!
>
> Regards,
>
> Igor2
>
Hi Igor2 and all,
Not another unproductive flamewar, please?
Let's all keep thinking constructive.
A fork is a fork: no more, no less, no judgements should be made.
AFAICT, there are no laws against forking.
If you have a use-case for your pcb-rnd fork, I'm happy for you and the
benefits it gives.
If there are features in that fork that are also usable for "others",
then "others" should get that functionality (code) implemented into
upstream pcb.
If you are willing to contribute to pcb upstream I thank you in advance.
Kind regards,
Bert Timmerman.
- Raw text -