Stefan Salewski wrote: > Please note: Quality is much more important for footprints and symbols > than quantity. So there are some people on this list which use/trust > only their own symbols/footprints. . . . > And an important task is to find very fine names for footprint and > symbols -- for me this is the most difficult problem. Names should > identify and describe the content to make it possible to access it for > others -- still an textual description may be needed. > > I agree that a fine collection of symbols and footprints would be great. > But putting all in a big basked is not good.
If the symbol repository ran on git, users could just check out tagged releases, and it could be very good for developing a set of symbols and footprints that are considered good enough for the tarball. Users who want no surprises can use a tagged release, which will only get bug fix changes. The repository could hold all the old, less well tested footprints and symbols, allowing the tarball released ones to be a smaller set, and well tested. The tarball release needs some different kinds of sections than now. Instead of types of parts, it could do more with types of assembly as a top level category set. For instance, the set (SMT, thru-hole, wire-ball, plug-board, arduino, fritzing). John Griessen -- Ecosensory Austin TX _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
