On 2015-09-17 21:45, Evan Foss wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 03:39:05PM -0400, Evan Foss wrote:
<snip>
> I would agree with using his library if that had been done honestly,
> after consensus among the developers. Now I don't ever know what the
> geda-gaf admin status is for and what it changes if other people (hi, DJ
> and Markus) decide who and where must drive the development in the
> project (it's about so named "levels of trust" here) and have all levers
> to move it the way they want without asking anybody else. Although I
> appreciate their work, I feel this behaviour not be fair.
1. The first time you miss attributed a quote to me I was ok but this
is the second time and I am getting irritated. Again this was Roland.
2. You were the one decenter on the thread "developer excitement? was
Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?" when the subject was
raised.
I assumed that was a consensus. Peter was totally absent at the time.
Sorry, I'm just tired. I've never written so much in English and never
thought I would do. It takes too much power to do this for me. I would
better programmed something :) Probably quoting is not the best one
because my mua converts HTML into text.
I understand the language issue for reasons I do not feel like
divulging on an email list. I have the option of ether doing real
coding each day after work or wearing myself out on all these blasted
emails. Like I said the longer we are like this the more I feel the
call of leaving.
I also use gmail. Set it to plain text by default. My non-tech friends
and family hate that I send them "ugly" emails but it has yet to cause
them any medical harm. ;)
If someone really *wants* me to parachute in from inactivity and make a
pronouncement *ex cathedra* then I can. However, I don't think that
would be good for the project, TBH.
An initial glance over the xorn branch code suggests that it's an
*enormously* invasive change to the point that it's basically a fork.
My feeling is that the best way forward here would just be to declare it
a fork, name it geda-xorn, give it its own top-level space on all the
gEDA sites, and proceed on that basis. Then there are three ways things
can turn out:
* geda-xorn is super successful, attracts lots of users, and the
geda-gaf maintainers decide to officially endorse geda-xorn as the
successor project.
* geda-xorn runs into problems. geda-gaf development can continue
unaffected.
* Both forks attract their adherents, development proceeds on both of
them, and the forks swap patches and shared code. Users can choose
which one they prefer.
I'd be happy with any of those outcomes. The fact that there's so much
conflict going on here means that if we merge xorn in, it's going to
alienate developers, and if we keep xorn out, it's going to alienate
developers.
You could even go one step further, and synchronise geda-gaf and
geda-xorn release schedules.
Peter
--
Dr Peter Brett <[email protected]>
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
