On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:01:59 -0400 DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
> [Subject changed to start new thread] > > [...] > > > When I first read geda documentation, there were already references > > that this had been discussed ad nauseam. > > If the default lib is to be changed now, then there should be some kind > > of new consensus on the heavy/light issue. > > IIRC there are a few proposals and/or active solutions in play: > > * Standard library is heavy, users either use those as-is or modify > them to alternate heavy symbols. I say go with this - because users already have to modify nearly all the symbols they use in a schematic when using the existing library. This way, most of the symbols will have default footprints and other attributes that will do just fine. At the very least, I don't think it would make the end user's workload any worse. If it breaks someone's workflow temporarily, they'll have to adapt. Such things are commonplace with far more major upgrades than an EDA package. I think of office suites and even whole OSs, which often end up requiring formal re-training when upgraded. -- "There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves." http://digitalaudioconcepts.com Vanessa Ezekowitz <vanessaezekow...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
