On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:32 AM, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> PCB and gEDA were separate projects on separate servers. > > To be accurate, gEDA is the whole project, and pcb, gaf (gschem and > friends), gerbv, icarus, gnucap, gtkwave, and gedasymbols are separate > independent sub-projects included in gEDA.
I used to use dino trace too. That thing is totally out of left field. >> PCB integrates things a lot. > > gaf and pcb both have an expansion feature - gaf uses gnetlist > backends and libraries, pcb uses actions and plugins. While PCB's > expansion is done in a monolithic binary and gaf is done as a > multitude of separate binaries, "pcb" is still one thing (rarely split > up) and "gaf" is still one thing (rarely split up). And that is why no one argues that we should split all of geda back up again. > These are technical details and semantics that are not that important > as differentiators, but people tend to be very emotionally tied to > their particular favorites. The arguments over these became more > important than solving actual problems. > > The people who want to make progress by actually writing code and > solving problems get priority from me. If these problems can be > solved in ways compatible with each sub-projects internal design, it's > up to those who know the internal designs to help guide development to > fit those designs, not to block development out of fear it won't fit. > > So no, we should not separate the projects further. They get used > together, it should be easy to use them together. Integration at a > functional level is not incompatible with the design of each > sub-project, if the integration layer is implemented correctly. You are right and honestly I hated writing that email because. 1. I felt a bit like I was talking out of my behind but I was asked so. 2. I don't want to be mini-Doty. I respect the guy but I want to put more into my work than my emails. The thing this last paragraph is getting at though is the difference between integration as a functionality vs integration as in merging tools to merge functionality. >> > That is why I've talked about integration vs. separation of gaf and pcb >> > projects before. I'd prefer more integration. >> >> I prefer separation. I want more tools to fill the gaps inbetween and >> I was working on some plans for them which we should talk about in one >> or more other threads. > > Adding more tools between in order to make using gEDA as a whole > easier can be considered a form of integration too :-) Excellent point. Consider my mindset updated. -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/ -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
