kicad-developers team mailing list archive
-
kicad-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #07229
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
On 11/30/2011 2:29 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 08:12 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>> Lorenzo,
> :
>>>
>>> To do the least little thing, you have to get rid of the legacy
>>> first. It is obvious from the code. So, my question, under
>>> the current "managmement", why has this not happenned? For so
>>> many years. My only conclusion is that the current "management"
>>> is incapable of doing it for one reason or another.
>>>
>>> --brian
>> One of the best ways to get started actually contributing to KiCad is to offer byte sized
>> patches which concentrate on one or two public member fields, and provides accessors for
>> these, making the fields protected or private. I cannot tell you how many of these kinds
>> of patches that Wayne and I have made. I did scores of them in 2008. Wayne has done more
>> than that in the last two years.
>>
>> This procedure, if continued by enough man-hours, would transition KiCad more in the
>> direction of an object oriented design. We remember that KiCad was originally C code not
>> C++. So it has been in evolution for the last several years, all the while churning out
>> boards that we all benefit from.
>>
>> Current "management" is incapable of doing this because current management is not paid
>> enough to work on this project full time. To help with this evolution, the door is open
>> to more volunteers. The product of the work should be reasonably sized patches,
>> addressing one or two fields at a time. Even doing this, these are sometimes thousand
>> line patches.
>>
>> No disagreement on the need. Just in attitude, and willingness to contribute in a way
>> that is appropriate.
>>
>>
>> Dick
>
> After further consideration, I revise my position, and tend towards Brian's point of
> view. There is NEW code being written that is not being respectful or our goal towards
> effective C++.
Given all of the object encapsulation and global variable elimination fixes
I've made over the years, I thought I was immune from this one but I found one
of my classes (only DANGLING_END_ITEM so far, there may be others) with public
member variables. I hang my head in shame. :( I know better. I have added it
to my todo list. I will continue fixing these issues in legacy code as I find
them.
> Specifically new code is adding public members, and not using accessors. In fact, I would
> say a considerable amount of new code.
>
> I no longer have any answers to this problem. We have to get more buy in from others in
> the project, including Jean-Pierre.
You have my continued support.
Wayne
>
>
> Dick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
References
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Vladimir Uryvaev, 2011-11-18
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Vladimir Uryvaev, 2011-11-20
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Dick Hollenbeck, 2011-11-21
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Vladimir Uryvaev, 2011-11-22
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock, 2011-11-22
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Simon Turner, 2011-11-22
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock, 2011-11-22
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock, 2011-11-22
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Dick Hollenbeck, 2011-11-22
-
Re: Concerns about clearing disagreements before committing.
From: Dick Hollenbeck, 2011-11-30