← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: In response to KiCon panel question "atomic" vs "CvPcb" answer


On 5/3/2019 4:59 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote:
> On 03/05/19 22:48, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
>> I was just trying to find this discussion in the video, can you give
>> the time?
>> The link to the video is here, for the future generations of internet
>> search engine users who find this thread:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRwTyBX2BFk
> Around 4 minutes in.
> And i think a single remark made towards the end of that answer spawned
> this hellfire:
> https://forum.kicad.info/t/more-fully-specified-symbol-library-discussion/16701
> (Fair warning the poster took a small remark way too seriously and
> assumed that the fully specified symbol workflow might go away. Which i
> do not belive was the intended message at all. The reason i even made
> this post was that i knew that thread quite well and immediately
> realized where the user got the ideas from just by hearing that answer.
> I just wanted to give you guys my interpretation of the 2 or 3 possible
> workflows as a possible reference and in part to ensure users that all
> workflows are seen as equally viable depending on exact circumstance.)

Feel free to engage this if you want to but please don't drag me into
it.  Honestly, I really don't care how users define their symbols or
what work flow users prefer.  KiCad places no restrictions on this
regard nor do I plan to change that.  I don't understood what the big
deal is.  Are they upset that we are not providing fully defined
symbols?  That's not even a reasonable request since there is no way to
meet everyone's individual needs but that doesn't mean that they cannot
do this.  I really don't know what else can be said about this issue
that hasn't been said over and over again.


Follow ups