ID:	5731
From:	rn...@igor2.repo.hu
Date:	Sat, 9 Jul 2022 06:13:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject:	Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal
in-reply-to:	5730 from Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com>
replies:	5732 from Erich Heinzle <a1...@gmail.com> , 5733 from Gabriel Paubert <pa...@iram.es> , 5740 from rn...@igor2.repo.hu
 
 
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022, Bdale Garbee wrote:
 
>rnd2@igor2.repo.hu writes:
>
>> In what situation would you name your initial file foo.pcb when running 
>> pcb-rnd instead of foo.lht knowing your Makefile expects foo.lht for 
>> lihata?
>
>I wouldn't.
>
>> Or are you trying to create a geda/pcb file using pcb-rnd?
>
>Nope. 
>
>My issue is that I have a lot of existing .sch and .pcb files in my
>design tree, where those suffixes currently have meaning relative to the
>content.  While I could of course customize things any way I want, if
>you change the default behavior of the ringdove suite tools to generate
 
You wouldn't need to customize or change anything for your existing 
projects.
 
>.sch and .pcb files with lihata content, I'm confident I'll end up
>dealing with files that have those extensions and lihata content one way
>or another .. borrowing designs, trying to collaborate with others,
>whatever.
 
Ok, collaborating is a good point, if you had exisitng Makefiles assuming 
a certain naming convention and others use a different naming convention 
you surely would need to rename those files on import.
 
>I'm certainly not married to .lht as an extension for PCB designs .. the
>total number of boards I've created in pcb-rnd to date would take me
>only a few minutes to rename to match whatever your new default is,
>updating my "harness logic" as needed to match.  I'd do that work
>because I like using tools as close to their "default" behavior as
>possible since a lot of what I work on is done in collaboration with
>others and any time we customize at this sort of level, it's just making
>more work in that context.
>
>So .. what I hope for is that the default file name extensions for
>ringdove are "unique" at least as far as avoiding conflict with any
>existing tools that I, or others already in your user community, have built
>infrastructure dependencies around, so that I can happily use the
>ringdove default extensions for the designs I use ringdove tools for,
>while keeping my big tree of existing design data around... and never
>(as a human looking at files in directories) be confused about what is
>what. 
 
Ok, so we can't identify any specific technical detail that would break, 
but you want to both stick to the new default file names and your existing 
file names. 
 
That sounds reasonable as user preference. I wonder if we can find a 
shorter variant, because my user preference is not to make file names 
longer. Of coure this would sacrifice the "natural" part, but it seems we 
need to sacrifice something.
 
 
What about these:
 
1. rcb/rch; symbols could be rym, footprints rfp. So r + second char + 
last char of the original, sort of replacing first char instead of 
inserting one. So basically you type the same thing, just replace first 
char with r. Except for the footprint where we insert r before fp.
 
2. rpb/rsh; symbols could be rsm, footprints rfp. Same idea, but r + first 
char + last char
 
3. rp/rs; symbols could be ry, footprints rf. So two chars only, r for 
ringdove, then one for the purpose. If it's non-natural, "unreadable" 
anyway, why not make it also short?
 
4. bor/sem for board/schematics, sbl/fpt for symbol and footprint (so 
using totally different characters/terms only loosely connected - 
guaranteed it won't match anything you ever used in this context)
 
5. pbd/sms for Printed (circuit) BoarD and ScheMaticS, sbl/fpt for symbol 
and footprint (first char, a middle char and last char, consistently)
 
 
Best regards,
 
Igor2
Mailing list archives : pcb-rnd

Navigation
