geda-developers team mailing list archive

[Evan Foss <evanfoss@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:32 AM, DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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/