www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to | |
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; | |
bh=1ZLV6HzbhgHGADRlkKX+wFubzclGiTQNxenJYm5MGUY=; | |
b=qs77SX3aAJCcnLIkT0jOGWz7ofXNJGJImsynYRDHyiO5wKRVYgT9E5dcJT25E7McJu | |
kHKZrN2V/pEkpPXQ7Xnas+HnoODPMFyfyBgX8zyYocvGSQy9cYopysGip9zLJrg2eKee | |
FLCksFUT1eyeX1tsQLa/pIr/lUpZso3BjifJvvNWGj62E7zKAJav7aJFX8CmCkZz9BXX | |
UhpRYFCGon02O3jb3fpNujOrBoVwNbHtMyPbMFhAjBs9JIItWOFPa0fGUrWE7h99YPJA | |
S/CjMm8bqsCQt31KU6KbdexT+tBfxWY6KNuCCK/exQo7azN8RMkd4wm+VUfDRn7AKMda | |
1xpQ== | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Received: | by 10.112.77.197 with SMTP id u5mr8688055lbw.120.1442167955648; |
Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:12:35 -0700 (PDT) | |
In-Reply-To: | <1F6FAAB0-5AA9-44A5-9DA9-D443FB046470@noqsi.com> |
References: | <213E711D-64E1-43D5-86FA-DB8B6E2F759C AT noqsi DOT com> |
<1F6FAAB0-5AA9-44A5-9DA9-D443FB046470 AT noqsi DOT com> | |
Date: | Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:12:35 +0000 |
Message-ID: | <CAM2RGhQX+ZccHyKh3u51tGCVo+jnvOd7U5Gr=N2EG-+D52XcFw@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] "Back" Annotation with gEDA, actual experience |
From: | "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t8DICdu6032281 |
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 |
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:13 PM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote: > Oh, and one more thought. Was this really “back” annotation? I think of it as a design merge forward into a new branch, although the mechanics perhaps worked backward. Regardless, I think simply “annotation” is what we really want. I think we could all agree that the term forward annotation is what we have not from schematic to layout their for any mechanism that passes in the reverse would be back annotation. Now there is the difference between notation and annotation. I don't really like what PCB does with the forward annotation. Igor2's implimentation doesn't actually change nets or symbols for you, that would be suicidally complicated and fragile. I would much rather work with you on the other project adding to gnetlist or what ever than debate this. As you pointed out it is a more sought after than actually needed feature for most of our work so why are you kicking the hornets nest? As it is this code is all sitting in another of his forks. Can't we postpone the inevitable fight over merging it for after he officially releases it? >> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. >> http://www.noqsi.com/ >> jpd AT noqsi DOT com >> >> >> >> > > John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. > http://www.noqsi.com/ > jpd AT noqsi DOT com > > > -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |