[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: DB9 -> DE9
- To: geda-user@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: gEDA-user: DB9 -> DE9
- From: "Charles Lepple" <clepple@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:47:56 -0500
- Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
- Delivered-to: geda-user-outgoing@seul.org
- Delivered-to: geda-user@seul.org
- Delivery-date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:48:03 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ivdC9jIxN/DbnKUSxeQ6x0aY1X0KP20pBRCKzw3UzTKXwlA5Lkm+cLj5HbgZ/SRLRTYawJmZZqZ82xWjSE+8iw2+P6qasAwde5+nZGzJA+89WdI8hAbAZLiAPXiEV1fUnjh1ubgp7t22V1sAFPyNF27AUh6GfHebGhubsFM1hMc=
- In-reply-to: <20060225105533.GA12334@kestrel>
- References: <20060225105533.GA12334@kestrel>
- Reply-to: geda-user@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-geda-user@xxxxxxxx
On 2/25/06, Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I suggest the gschem symbols DB-1.sym and DB-2.sym to be renamed to
> DE-1.sym and DE-2.sym because according to Wikipedia it's the correct
> designation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB25
Regardless of which designation is correct, gEDA convention seems to
prefer creating another new symbol with a higher version number
(DE-3), rather than editing an older symbol-- that is, unless the
older symbol is truly broken. More people will recognize DB-9 over
DE-9 when looking for parts. If you really want to retire DB-1.sym and
DB-2.sym, do you have a suggestion for an upgrade path? Symbolic
links, maybe? A "deprecated symbol" warning message?
(I'm trying not to get hung up on the pedantry of the DB-9 vs DE-9
debate, but it's really difficult...)
--
- Charles Lepple