On May 21, 2011, at 9:30 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > 1. Nobody wants to kill support for anyone's personal process
What people want want what they actually do are two different things > A little trust here is needed to get us past the "what should we do" > phase and into the "how can we do it" phase. The difficulty for me is that when I see potentially flexible changes discussed in inflexible ways by developers, I strongly suspect that the developers will act as they write: they will actually implement something inflexible. Consider "back annotation". Why not just call it "annotation"? An annotation tool can potentially be used either backward or forward, but I fear a developer who only perceives the backward case will find a way to restrict it to that case. When a mechanism in gschem is potentially applicable to a flow using any layout tool, not just pcb, why not use "layout tool" rather than "pcb" in the discussion? That will help keep the diversity of uses in everybody's mind. The use of neutral language would go very far toward building my trust. > > I've said this plenty of times in the past, but it bears repeating - > we want the common uses to be easy, and the uncommon uses to be > possible. Easy is a personal judgement. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
