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. 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! John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
