Stefan Salewski wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 16:13 -0500, Bob Paddock wrote:Peter, while all of this sounds great, could we fix the collective problems that we have now first? To many of us PCB is used to ship products, preferably today.Fixing problems is not always fun, especially if one is not really suffering from these problems oneself. So if we can not fix it ourself, we may consider paying other people to do that, in particular if we ship boards and earn money with it.
There are blackboards for freelance engineers, to make a defined feature in opensource software. This seems a good model of payment to me. The problem to me in our case is atm:- the writer of a certain feature is not required to understand enough of the app,
to avoid new bugs in other parts- the writer is not required to run extensive regression tests after the change
and provide tests for his feature as well- there is noone fully coordinating the work of contributors and saveguarding
the internal interfacesSince we do not have the documentation Bob requests, it's practically impossible, to meet above standards and without above quality measure in place I'm unwilling
to pay any money.Btw., fixing bugs in a well designed, well documented, cleanly written application is a lot more fun than in <insert_decription_of_choice> and orders of magnitude faster. That's why I suggested to personally throw out BS like '#define END_LOOP }}' and all it entails. Since this was not welcomed, I decided to not try and dive into
the code any further. Armin _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user