On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 07:28 -0500, Ales Hvezda wrote: > Hi PeterB, > > > That does seem like a good idea. I imagine that the definite release would > > go > > into a maintenance cycle as the stable version while the internals get > > butchered during the redesign? > > Yes, the definite release would go into extended maintenance mode while > the development version gets modified. > > However, based on what I have been reading over the past few days, all > of the proposed and/or in progress changes made by various people seem > quite radical, so I encourage those people who want to make really radical > changes to fork and rename their implementation as it will be difficult > to integrate the huge architectural changes into the existing code base.
I'd not like to see any forking of libgeda / gschem / gaf. The most radical I'd envisage would be to have two APIs co-exist, and gently port from one to the other. (Even if it required a temporary wrapper layer between the twp APIs during the process). As with the glist-dev and no-screen changes, the code changes should be undetectable from the user's perspective. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
