kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 8, 2013 7:31 AM, "Dick Hollenbeck" <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On May 8, 2013 7:24 AM, "Simon Huwyler" <simon.huwyler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kicad  evolves based on individual need.  Try and stay close to your
> >> individual use cases, else you may end up creating something few will
use.
> >> Einstein: as simple as possible, but not simpler.
> >
> >
> > So, if I get you right, the whole KiCad repository is merely a huge
collection of branches each one created for personal needs (as in my case
the very special need to deal with _fabrication_ layer constraints), and
only time will show what turns out to be a feature that should be taken
into the main branch?
> >
> > So, my approch was not that bad, indeed! :-) Therefore, I should upload
this branch, even knowing that it is useful for _me_ and probably no one
else?
> > Sorry for these newbie-ish questions. But this is really a whole new
world for me. :-) I was quite reluctant doing so, because I thought I
should only "contribute" things that are really useful to others and have a
chance to eventually make it to the main branch.
>
> This approach is now common in launchpad hosted projects and at github.
>
> Your blueprint idea is worth a try.  I don't know how good its UI is.

A forum with topic specific threads might be more useful.  Rate of
improvement in launchpad is slow at this point.  Shuttleworth is chasing
bigger fish.  No sign of the $100, 000, 000 investment at github either.
They still cannot even display source lines wider than about 80
characters.  But free only buys you so much.

 But often great ideas are lost in the  stream of the mailing list.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Lorenzo Marcantonio
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:12 PM
> >
> > To: Kicad Developers
> > Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints
> >
> > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:03:48AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> >>
> >> Alfons, in munich, worked for zucken (spelling), an eda company, for 15
> >> years, well bfore writing freerouter.  His UI includes netclass
features.
> >> It is not obvious that they merely mimic the specctra spec.  If not, is
> >> this his experience being injected to trump something he thought was
> >> imperfect?
> >
> >
> > I can't say... SPECCTRA was a pre-existing product, and simply became
the
> > defacto interface. Maybe it's simply well engineered for the things it
> > needs to do, but then every company will 'personalize' it depending on
> > the requirements (so they can say "our specctra is better than yours!").
> > The same freerouter AFAIK don't implement it in full (no arcs, for
> > example, seeing the kicad code).
> >
> > Or maybe the author of freerouter simply added the extra features
> > because they were convenient (and to hell with the specctra standard).
> >
> >> Kicad  evolves based on individual need.  Try and stay close to your
> >> individual use cases, else you may end up creating something few will
use.
> >> Einstein: as simple as possible, but not simpler.
> >
> >
> > That's why we are discussing if/how enhanced rules can be applied.
> >
> > --
> > Lorenzo Marcantonio
> > Logos Srl
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp