On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 03:08:24AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > 1. until we discuss its place in the project and get consensus > > amongst developers on this > > Consensus is in short supply these days. It has stifled progress in > the past. A bit of anarchy has brought some progress. It may not be > perfect but what we had before wasn't either. So you consider adding various rewrites of the programs we have using various languages to be a progress? Who will support all the new stuff then, fix the bugs there? Aren't you afraid this will turn into one-man show? And above all, I've not seen any real reason to do it this way but "We don't like Guile" :( > > > 2. because it breaks my release plans (I've been thinking of a new > > release as is ASAP, and then a bug-fix release) > > Branch from just before the xorn integration, then. I think that > until we have a solid development schedule, we're going to have to > risk things happening "not when convenient". Yes, yes. And then branch from that branch, and then again. Why is the master branch needed then? And why do you resist of moving pcb onto xorn? What is the difference with geda-gaf? That you wouldn't support it then? :-P > > > 3. because it introduces complications for the Windows port (new > > dependencies) > > Heh, if we waited until all the windows "complications" were resolved, > we'd never release anything ;-)
Look, I worked on it for half a year, and had a progress. Then my plan was to make an unstable release and let Windows users see it, then a bug-fix release, to have a bit more stable version. Now, when geda-gaf builds also without problems on *BSD, it would be the most appropriate moment. But you move in an experimental stuff, making things to be in flux again, and drive me into a corner. Thanks, Vladimir -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
