That is fantastic news! I didn’t get that impression though from the responses I got on my bug report.
I think the conversation there got confused by people requesting the ability to save in the legacy format. What Wayne is saying is we aren’t going to make a way to save in the old format. We are going to make it easier and faster to update all your libraries to the new format, though.
1 Like
I was going by the following statement:
The way I understood it that you use your old libraries for your old designs and make new libraries for the new ones. I’m glad I was wrong
You can continue using old libraries as read-only, or you can save them in the new format to be able to edit them. You can do a migration (open an old-format library, do a “save as” in the new format) and then you are free to add to that library.
What Wayne was saying here is that he didn’t want to assume that just by opening up an old library that someone wants it to be automatically converted to the new format.
3 Likes
Yes, the painstaking process I described in the beginning of this thread. That relates to “Save” option though. As far as “save a copy as” goes - it doesn’t work work the way you are describing it. As a matter of fact it doesn’t work at all in the current implementation.
The painstaking process is what I was saying we will make easier later (we want to get it down to a few clicks). If “save a copy as” doesn’t work, that’s a bug that we should fix.
Interestingly enough, it wouldn’t let you do “save a copy as” into the current library. It will give you an error message that that symbol already exists. It will let you save a copy into another library though…in the old format. So it actually wouldn’t take really any effort to allow saving in the old format in the first place. Because I can save a copy into another library, delete it in the current library, and then save a copy from that library into the current library.
Appreciate your response and support the KiCAD proposed way forward in this. If a convert tool is made available in due time can a verification tool/step be part of that? I am not entirely sure what is possible and practical in that area but it would be good to see some discussion on that.
I think this is a reasonable idea. I’m not sure the best way to implement it, and I’m not sure if it should be part of the actual migration or just a separate tool that can be run by people who are testing the software. It seems like this would be something that you could do with a simple script in Python or something like this.
Ah, I misunderstood you. “Save Copy As” is a bit confusing in this context: you meant to save an individual symbol as a new symbol under a new name. I was referring to saving a whole library (not a specific symbol). To do this, you currently right-click the library itself in the list, and choose “Save As”
1 Like
Yes that is what I am thinking of also; a standalone tool for verification of the part migration. Possibly useful (with additional functionality) to test parts/symbols against a standard.
Not quite so. Talking about 5.99 master.
All there is needed is to save the existing user library under the same name which in the process receives a new file extension hence the necessity to update the file entry in the lib-list.
The actual conversion process takes place automatically during save.
We have been developing our own library in V5.1.5 for the last year.
Next step will be to transfer everything to V6 as soon as we feel it is ready for our needs.
But we’ll give it a little more time before going forward.
Any idea when V6 is planned to be released?
I plan to update to V6 only after there is a stable conversion tool or process up on the download site, and clear explanation about how to use or do it and what results to expect.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.