Re: gEDA-user: footprints -- novice`s problems

[Dave McGuire <mcguire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

DJ Delorie wrote:
>> And I'd argue that even that isn't enough to qualify as a thorough 
>> verification.  I might do a proto board without silk or soldermask and 
>> everything looks good except that the silk and soldermask for the 
>> footprint is messed up.  Or I might be able to hand solder it but not 
>> have it be reliable or able to be reliably assembled in a factory 
>> environment.
> 
> So far, we've been going with the "vetted" flag, which just means
> "I've used this footprint in a board that worked".
> 
>> I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can because every little bit 
>> helps.  I'm just saying there are many different levels of verification :)
> 
> Yeah.

  If I may jump in and make a suggestion...The "vetted" flag works
nicely for this, but turning it into an integer "score" might give us
more functionality.  Think of it as an eBay feedback rating.  For every
different person who uses it successfully on a real board, it'd be
incremented by one.  This would also (assuming centrally-coordinated
database) give us an idea of the frequency of use of each symbol, which
ought to be interesting if not useful in some other way.

         -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user