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=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=GFUDa0M35Sm/6mpDhvEJhusKN9FXSOj/IUia+ZQFoGw=;
        b=LKKF4hYIB5XqTUTYLgMy3kWfqucrRhPOb4lDGJ/HnJnM144H3fvRDgbpNvtyWu6WVa
         exQNMbK8dNeZq+depK6NYMhsGQIRcD9Bu82dtOyaAdbGCuCXNsyETTwPL014TGuRlCv7
         mGRSt9MPWll/5lTKmloBE8TBI2mivzXJ4ZAtiqgtMQlsGIg9MmBYV23UsYYePxnVt7PF
         /g6SP6NTrCPHlkCyZZCBwz95D5jiUNddZHvhg3bngwpixFsasNPhTjZXNB8f1RetCHno
         4JU+aH1zKHImY0a0WPCXS6UrXvwgIP09JJXKEN+1iIEbe874VzfZmuBraVEPQiYI2/rB
         cs1Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.213.78 with SMTP id m75mr2294949oig.56.1450804626934;
 Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:17:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJXU7q_GnuGNMtUWkB-xgBiKgY5R5W4ZCjtnz5EJizG+46dm1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5AC3D5C5-144F-41AE-9562-47BC34D9047F AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAJXU7q_GnuGNMtUWkB-xgBiKgY5R5W4ZCjtnz5EJizG+46dm1w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:17:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJXU7q9-RimdTK_FNEUz56ZN7R1u7Sco5jrANseV_-65fh+8VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Project leadership
From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id tBMHHA4N014008
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

Possibly I got over-excited with that reply.. sorry.

FWIW, I think that in some ways, KiCAD is slowly becoming more like
gEDA, not the other way around.

(But then - I have sat and talked with their developers, and know some
of their goals for the next release).

Peter

On 22 December 2015 at 17:13, Peter Clifton
<petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com> wrote:
> On 22 December 2015 at 17:01, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>
>>> KiCAD has had a clear project at most points in its history, and that
>>> person has been responsible for shaping the development goals,
>>> strategies and targeting what developer effort they had at their
>>> disposal. Handover between leaders has (at least in recent times),
>>> been clear and decisive within the project. (I'm less clear about the
>>> hand-over from its original author to the first project leader).
>>
>> And the result is an inflexible integrated tool rather than a flexible toolkit. We cover the parts of the space that they don’t. It would be great to interoperate with KiCAD. It would be horrible to become more like them: they already have that part of the space covered better than we ever will.
>
>
> I have no idea how you got to your conclusion from that...
>
> They have a goal, and a design target - their leadership furthers the
> goal of achieving that design... I fail to see how the fact they have
> leadership dictates one design choice over another.
>
> We all _GET_ that you don't like the KiCAD design.
> Do you _GET_ that we're (I) am not trying to force that on gEDA?
>
>
>
> Peter