Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:

> 
> Am 06.12.2010 um 16:32 schrieb Stefan Salewski:
> 
>> Sometimes there are some good reasons against code changes:
>> 
>> - huge increase in complexity for minimal gain. gcc 4.x may be an
>> example for this -- for some architectures there was not much gain from
>> 3.x, for microcontrollers there was some regression.
>> 
>> - sometimes the basic design of software is so bad (spagetti code) that
>> each modification will introduce bugs.
>> 
>> - with changes the code will not work any more with old hardware or
>> libraries or architectures.
>> 
>> - porting to other languages or hardware can become harder
>> 
>> - licensing may be another issue, BSD/GNU/APACHE...
> 
> At best, these are reasons to ask the commiter to review his code to match additional criteria. How would he know what traditinal gEDA developers consider to be well formatted code, a good strategy of conditionals, or what they consider to be a "huge increase"? In the two months I'm on this list I've almost never seen such such a request for matching additional criteria, despite of lots of no-no criticism.

If the bug "fix" merely piles a kludge atop poorly designed code, it should be rejected regardless of style issues.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user