Re: gEDA-user: PCB Gtk port

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

> You're confusing a fork and a branch.  It looks like our (pcb's) plan
> is to create a branch in CVS so we can support both versions without
> disrupting our development process.  I've recommended creating a
> branch for the Xaw version and put it in "bugfix only" mode, and add
> the Gtk changes in the mainline (HEAD) version.

I totally agree with this idea, FWIW.  No need to fork, when the GTK
port is really just a development branch.  I also agree with DJ that
the GTK branch should become the mainline branch.  [1]

One question, however, is the name of the program.  Others have taken
to calling it "gpcb".  I also like this name for several reasons:

*  The name "PCB" is ambiguous:  It refers to the program, and it also
refers to the thing you are designing, a Printed Circuit Board.  While
writing documentation for the gEDA project, I always worry that
newbies might be confused by the ambiguity.

*  "Gpcb" is redolent of "gschem", "gnetlist", etc, which is the
naming hallmark of the gEDA project.  Of course, PCB stands to the
side of gEDA/gaf since it is supported by other people.  However, it
is intimately linked to gEDA by virtue of gsch2pcb, and other
netlisters.  Therefore, why not name it similarly?

*  Naming the GTK port "gpcb" signals that it is very different from
the older Xaw based version.  This helps in "marketing" gEDA.  Folks
who long ago dismissed gEDA because they didn't like the Xaw version
of PCB will be given a chance to try it out again under a new name.

> So far, nobody has offered a valid reason to fork pcb.

'Cause there is none?   (IMO.)

Stuart

[1]  Sorry for the aol-ish "me too" type post!   :-)