| ID: | 5746 |
| From: | rn...@igor2.repo.hu |
| Date: | Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:20:38 +0200 (CEST) |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] Poll comments (was: poll on file naming) |
| in-reply-to: | 5745 from Majenko Technologies <ma...@majenko.co.uk> |
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Majenko Technologies wrote: >TBH I'm not a fan of any of the choices, but I've chosen the least >offensive. Sure, same here. My favorite is still sch/pcb. But this happens very often here, and used to happen on geda a decade ago: since our tools don't limit us into one specific, narrow workflow, users diverge and start depending on a wide range of very different workflows and preferences. And then we can't have one perfect solution, because there always will be someone whose workflow or preference is broken by that solution. All we can have is a "good enough" solution that doesn't break any preference/workflow too much (but is regarded as imperfect by everybody). (In retrospect, when I introduced our new native file format, I should have set up the initial conventions differently, maybe stick to the "don't care about file name" policy so much to stick with .pcb - I am sure everyone would have got used to it by now. My only excuse is that io_lihata started in 2016, when I still did have some hope that geda would get up to speed to pcb-rnd and we could just get geda fixed instead of having to start a whole new EDA suite. Only if I had a time machine back then to see where things headed in a few years... I should have done the initial fork a year earlier, I should have made it public 1..2 years earlier, I should have decided on discarding geda at least 2 years earlier...) Regards, Igor2
Reply subtree:
5746 Re: [pcb-rnd] Poll comments (was: poll on file naming) from rn...@igor2.repo.hu