kicad-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: New schematic file format.
On 31 March 2011 14:09, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 05:59 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 30 March 2011 15:43, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> So to make this plan work, you'd simply have to strip out one wrapping
>>>> s-expression element from a schematic and save it to disk again, but say
>>>> with a different file extension.
>>> What about a check box in the save dialog?
>>> When checked it outputs the file twice, a second copy to a file perhaps
>>> named like:
>> This would require a custom file dialog, which sounds like trouble.
> Where there is a will, there is a way. The concept should not fall on this
> one weak concern, "making a dialog". The configuration flag could control
> this also, which when set, simply means write the schematic file twice. No
> dialog even required in that case.
> Again, my proposal is to put the user options into the schematic, but strip
> them when you don't want them in there for purposes of VCS, along with
> anything else that you don't want to screw up difference detection in the VCS.
>> Perhaps it could just be a tool under File -> Export -> User Settings,
>> which can export a <schematic>.kuo (Kicad User Options) file. This
>> could be exported when someone is seeking support and the support
>> person wants to run the same user settings.
>> The support persons installation of KiCad will load the schematic, and
>> look for a <schematic>.kuo file, overriding the default user options
>> with the <schematic>.kuo options.
> I see no need to export user options, ever. I don't understand why you need
> to export them, when they are already accessible. Export them from what,
> why not use them where they normally live, in the schematic under my
> proposal, or in a project file under the alternate proposal? I don't see
> any value in this suggestion, which is specifically to "export user options".
I was unaware that user options were to live in the schematic based on
your proposal 24 hours ago, given that I noted this breaks version
control of schematics. If that is the case then I need not say
anything else on the matter, it has been decided.
I do not see a <schematic>.vcs idea as a desirable option at all.