On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Dick Hollenbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 04:44 PM, Chris Morgan wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Dick Hollenbeck <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 08/07/2013 05:25 AM, Chris Morgan wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Dick Hollenbeck <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> On 08/06/2013 06:40 PM, Chris Morgan wrote: > > >>> Hello. > > >>> > > >>> Sites like http://www.kicadlib.org/ are great for sharing > libraries > > >>> but I was thinking that having integrated online library sharing > could > > >>> better distribute the work while making it easier to share and > use > > >>> parts. A user could add add trusted sources to their remote > libraries, > > >>> contribute new parts, vote on parts etc. > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts? It would probably take a bit of effort to spec out and > > >>> implement things, I was thinking of an indiegogo or kickstarter > > >>> approach to fund the work. > > >>> > > >>> Chris > > >> > > >> > > >> This has been discussed numerous times, both for eeschema and for > pcbnew. > > >> > > >> In fact I mentioned it for pcbnew about 4 days ago again. > > >> > > >> The eeschema conversation is longer, and archives have it already. > > >> > > > > > > I've done a couple of searches like "kicad online library" and > "kicad > > > network library" that didn't turn up anything. Were different terms > > > used in the discussion? > > > > > > SWEET > > > > This design is one I wrote as a result of endless emails and > thinking about it: > > > > http://dev.kicad-pcb.org/sweet/ > > > > In the source tree you find the doxygen source to this design > document named new/design.h > > > > SWEET is different than PRETTY in that SWEET is designed to be human > writable, human > > readable. Whereas PRETTY was intended only to be human readable. > > > > In the end, I decided that eeschema needed to be rewritten, not > adapted. This is where > > you start in a new directory and start over, but are free to copy > pieces from the original > > work with scrutiny and refinement as you go. > > > > It ended up being too much work for me to fund. Get about $100,000 > and I might be > > interested in doing the work. Some of it is done already however, > the parser and I > > started writing a GAL client before GAL was a good as it is now. > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > > > Hi Dick. > > > > I went through the documents and it looks like an interesting approach > to versioning > > parts. Clearly you've spent a lot of time building that up. I'm > wondering if we should > > consider using a simpler, full part, versioning for the first round of > any client/server > > api. It might not be as efficient but it would likely simplify the > implementation and make > > it easier to move parts around. > > > > Chris > > > KiCad treats footprints and schematic parts differently. (Yet does not > prevent you from > adding references from one to another.) So if you want "to simplify", you > should have one > conversation about each realms, footprints and schematic parts. Two > separate > conversations. One in my mind is a $100,000 undertaking, the other is a > mere 3 weeks of work. > > Simple is the latter. You started by saying the remote library should > work just like a > local library for access. Let's say that is true for read only access. > For admin, you > develop your webbrowser submission and patch approval process with human > intervention. > The 3 week effort includes only the read only access, as I measure it. > > I don't think eeschema is a foundation that should be built upon. So I > don't wish to say > anything more about schematic part remoting, other than I will rewrite > eeschema and do > sweet for $100,000. Short of that is of no interest, you'd be building on > sand. > > So the conversation I can help with is the pcbnew one, and writing a "read > only" http > footprint PLUGIN is quite easy IMO. As I look at it now, there are really > 3 separate > conversations. One I don't want to have again, until there is money, a > second one on read > only access of footprints, and a third one I don't care about which is the > "web admin" of > the read only footprint access. You could do the latter using github pull > requests. Keep > it easy. There is no versioning in the footprint PLUGIN api. > > Hopefully you can best utilize my time based on what I've said here. > > Dick > > On the topic of footprints vs. parts (is that the correct way to refer to them? I was using footprints and symbols), is there any reason why they couldn't ultimately be treated more similarly in terms of a client/server approach, or a file based approach? I presume you mean that today eeschema and pcbnew treat them differently but don't necessarily have to? Chris
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
