| ID: | 5733 |
| From: | Gabriel Paubert <pa...@iram.es> |
| Date: | Sat, 9 Jul 2022 07:33:41 +0200 |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal |
| in-reply-to: | 5731 from rn...@igor2.repo.hu |
| replies: | 5734 from John Griessen <jo...@cibolo.com> |
Just a stupid idea: lht->lyt for PCBs, lyt meaning "layout". For schematics I have no idea. Gabriel On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 06:13:57AM +0200, rnd2@igor2.repo.hu wrote: > > > 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 > > >
Reply subtree:
5733 Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal from Gabriel Paubert <pa...@iram.es>
5734 Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal from John Griessen <jo...@cibolo.com>
5735 Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal from Hannu Vuolasaho <vu...@msn.com>