On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Newell Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my opinion, the projects with highest priority are the ones > > that address obvious reasons people don't use gEDA. > > > > With this in mind, I think the translators are the highest > > priority. The need to hack files to move between our own tools > > is a big turn-off. An overall project manager is important > > too, but experienced users don't mind (or actually like) > > separate tools. A GUI won't do any good if the file > > translation isn't complete. We should be able to use the same > > schematic for simulation and PC board. > > > Could the rest of the developers comment on this. > > I ask because I can code in C/C++ and if there is work that is > *More*important for the project I could propose to do something else. I am > comfortable with separate tools so I totally understand. The reason that I > proposed to work on the Project Manager is because I currently make GUIs at > work so I have a fairly good understanding of all the details that are > involved in making one work. > > > Just to clarify, I still want to do the Project Manager for the gEDA Suite. I think this is important for beginning (especially if new to linux) users as it will tie everything together (most of it hopefully). However, just because I feel strongly about this doesn't mean that this is the most economical or needed thing for gEDA, especially considering that I am new to the list and the tool suite in general. > > > > > This year, I would like to see us concentrate on making the > > system work as a system, while keeping the flexibility of the > > separate tools. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > geda-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev > > > >
_______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
