On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 10:36 -0700, John Doty wrote: > On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:30 PM, al davis wrote: > > > On Friday 09 January 2009, Paul Tan wrote: > >> I do raise concern if changes are imposed to > >> constrain gEDA flexible architecture unnecessarily. > > > > Don't worry about it. None of the key developers would tolerate > > any reduction in flexibility. If anything, it will become more > > flexible. > > Well, that's their goal. But, there's a tendency to be scenario- > oriented that causes gEDA to become more rigid, at least "out of the > box", as it evolves.
Yes, we are focusing on common use-cases, and an out of the box install which works well for those is what we should be trying to achieve. If that doesn't fit your flow, sorry - you'll need to keep some locally modified config files. That isn't a big burden for a technical user. > I just spent a couple of hours tracking down attributes that should > never have been "promoted". Apparently, I drew some schematics after > the defaults changed and didn't fix the gafrc to do what I think is > the right thing. Getting rid of unwanted invisible attributes in a > dense schematic is a pain. > Having things like footprints in the schematic is generally an > unnecessary barrier to schematic reuse between projects. To me, > footprints usually belong in the symbol: I'm not going to mix > footprints between instances of the same component in a given project! I guess its a shame we don't embed a cached copy (or checksum) of the symbol on-disk in the schematic page. That way it would be possible for you to change the symbol on disk and run a scan for places which were affected by the change. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list geda-dev@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
