Stephen Williams wrote:
DJ Delorie wrote:
Thank you Steve. Not speaking for the PCB developers, but I'm sure they
appreciate the bug reports; I know I do.
We appreciate all the feedback, with the understanding that we can
only get to a tiny percentage of it at a time, as there's only a few
of us, and we only do this as a hobby.
I'll tell you what. I'll pay you to fix your bugs if you pay me
to fix mine. Deal? :-)
now is it a coincidence that this came just a day or two after I filed
an icarus bug report ;)
Seriously, I also appreciate bug reports and suggestions for improvement
as long as people realize that there are relatively few of us working on
these tools and it is largely hobby work.
I have way more ideas for things I'd like to see in gEDA/gaf and also
PCB than I have time to implement. One thing which came up today is I'd
love to see a framework for as much automated testing of pcb as possible
be put into place. I know Carlos has done some for the drc2 backend for
gnetlist. I'd also like to see a more general framework in place for
testing parts of gEDA/gaf. If such a system ever gets put into place I
could envision it being very useful to have some volunteers take all bug
reports and turn them into regression tests that show the failure. I'm
just not quite sure how to implement all this though...
To give an example of where this could be useful, there was the drc bug
that came up today with pads on the corner of a QFN package. So it
would be most useful to have some automated tests that probe the limits
of the drc checker. Another is that there are some patches on sf right
now for allowing more or less arbitrary rotations of objects in pcb. A
cursory glance shows that the submitter is thinking of many of right
issues in making this actually work. It would be most useful if there
were a framework for really systematically testing it though.
-Dan
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
