← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

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


On 03/05/19 23:14, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:

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:

Around 4 minutes in.

And i think a single remark made towards the end of that answer spawned
this hellfire:
(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.


I did not intent to drag anybody into anything. (yes i am now aware that i kind of did by posting here. Sorry about that. Just wanted to provide some information that i think could be useful. And wanted to provide the context behind it.)