Hi Volker, you're definitely scratching something I've been thinking about for quite some time.
The direction in which I'd like to steer this whole would be twofold: * a high degree of quality assurance (that includes naming consistency) of in-tree code * a high degree of reward for developers to make their code stick to the standards set by the previous bullet point. Making it more attractive (and more "the standard way of doing it") to upstream own blocks (as opposed to writing excellent out-of-tree modules and having to care for those all by oneself) would be one option to achieve that. For now, I'd agree, while the block is certainly kind of a cool specialized file source extension, I don't know whether it's really beneficial to put it into a different category as the file source. Cheers, Marcus On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 11:15 +0100, Volker Schroer wrote: > Ron, > many thanks for your hints. They are very usefull for me. > > But just a question to the gnuradio developers: > > Wouldn't it be appropriate to have some predefined categories. > Otherwise I expect an uncontrolled growth on categories. > > But at the moment I know, how to proceed. > > Thanks again > > -- Volker > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
