Re: gEDA-user: How to deal with single/dual parts?

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:

> Peter TB Brett wrote:
>> And, furthermore, if I/we fixed it to work as designed, some users  
>> would be
>> up in arms -- because they have been using the mechanism in a way  
>> contrary
>> to its design, and fixing it to work as designed has broken their
>> schematics.
>>
>
> During the transition between the current state and the new, fixed
> version--- yes.  But they also have the option of forking pre-fix or
> waiting around until things stabilize.
>
>> Note that this same point applies to several other aspects of  
>> gEDA.  If,
>> when users state that they are taking advantage of bugs, we do not  
>> point
>> out that they *are* bugs and encourage them not to, then we lose the
>> ability to fix those bugs.  Down that path lies Windows^Wmadness.
>>
>
> We don't lose the ability to fix those bugs.  They lose the ability to
> continue exploiting those bugs.

There is no bug here. Just a well-defined mechanism that fails to map  
to an ill-defined concept ("slot"). The certain way to create bugs is  
to attempt to chase that ill-defined concept with code.

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