> How come, this meme of "limiting" appears in about every discussion on > future developments? Even in those, that are explicitly about broadening > the scope of the tools.
Because it's a key requirement that we allow a variety of flows to operate. I think we all agree that this is important, and we all agree that whatever we choose will allow it. But it gets mentioned anyway, because sometimes we suggest something that implies otherwise. For example, if I say "let's ship with a heavy library" someone might say "But I need light symbol support!" Yes, it sounds like we're mot supporting light symbols, but in reality we're just not *shipping* them, while continuing to support them. Likewise, talk about the schematic-metadata-layout system makes it sound like you can't put metadata inside the symbols, but in reality you could use pure heavy symbols and just have the "metadata" step do nothing. I think at this point we need to *all* realize two things: 1. Nobody wants to kill support for anyone's personal process 2. Any solution we choose will (and must) support any flow we already have 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. 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. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
