X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=WebkCzoYapLR+mY0fdLAkppZElFzctwjwqx6efjM3pk=;
	b=h5C6SJc8mQvYs7Jg3wumiorAcDn2Fqy35hn9XgQIR+THOiHhH4DnpbT5h1qk8rob+a
	jFjBIHdi5wC0xJvwZc43Vdjao90Nw2UQKX1U+qTZ0pSnkL/lAe3Q4f03tFqrEcQk0anj
	m6Rzu9MAo7OFlSlWMsFEttLVg+b3zF6JXRqfD276sW/XsKt88xFgwIitoI6qSqENwQdx
	jVMLdiOSEfjvuSs7LXDvfPUblSk07e+sXFxShhXePadPnMpOBcwiFo0QZg8HiVrFnXth
	Bum5uNR6vt+z4imyLO69MWPdJueKj0kQuWtOGXgrOL/LxjGZqmeXktxXEzDiwFOiezvl
	SABw==
X-Received:	by 10.180.91.131 with SMTP id ce3mr313153wib.84.1441051622842;
	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:07:01 +0200
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] back annotation proposal (RFC)
Message-Id:	<20150831220701.929d36b81e49e264f37e61a5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1508311725150.6924@igor2priv>
References:	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508301838470 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<201508301802 DOT t7UI2twS031311 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhRgPQG2WDFVb0SFvMbypyYKS2oYtD=851WHR6fOB4iWdA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201508310341 DOT t7V3fcfh022966 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<20150831111604 DOT 5b1bb421bc015de9a848e8a9 AT gmail DOT com>
	<55E42456 DOT 5080309 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<20150831112032 DOT GA8963 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<20150831134127 DOT 9dccc4c2563ce7bba5ded79d AT gmail DOT com>
	<55E46E18 DOT 7060102 AT ecosensory DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508311725150 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

PADS have a forward and backward option in this is an expensive software so it certainly work. If changes are kept in different files and/or some scripts need to be run I see as a variation on the same scheme.

If you implement a back annotation file I would consider it great and be happy even though it is possible changes are traveling in both directions in sort of at the same time if both files have been changed since the last annotation.


On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:30:58 +0200 (CEST)
gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, John Griessen wrote:
> 
> > On 08/31/2015 06:41 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via 
> > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >> I have thought a little bit more about the back annotation. Basically there 
> >> is a
> >
> > syncronization problem then for example a Refdes or footprint could be changed
> >
> > either from gschem or pcb. One possibility to adress this is for pcb to 
> > request
> >
> > gschem to make the change as I suggested before with a function like call.
> >
> > If files are used and changes are going both directions I could not figure out 
> > how to solve.
> >
> > It's OK to have -backann and -forwann files,  each one being one-way.
> >
> 
> ... exactly my proposal. I don't want to reinvent version control, clever 
> diffs, smart merges and resolving conflicts. gsch2pcb doesn't do any of 
> that either, and potentially could break things in large scale. It is 
> indeed a hassle sometimes, like when you have a board finished and change 
> a bunch of 1206 resistors to 0805 and you have to place them manually 
> again. But really, this doesn't hurt me as much as if I had to manually 
> transfer the footprint change from gschem to pcb, deleting the elements 
> in pcb and selecting the new ones from library, naming them, etc.
> 
> I just want the same idea to work in the other direction, in some aspect 
> the same way. Nothing more. Two one way "pipes". The back-pipe already 
> containing the "diff" in form of a list of changes to be performed _by 
> the user_ on the schematics.
> 
> If the user makes changes in both tools and then annotates forth and back 
> in the same time, he either knows what he is doing, or it will just break 
> and I don't mind it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Igor2

- Raw text -