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=axMZH5CF7qDaIkxfJyEu8ri3hNBQAlTy7Yrc0xn2OMQ=;
	b=pR34lnB0LbVPqfLTw+qYrmYlx/KKFqePZ7WwxBnnOykvo0gbii7cqmNaiFYYyCAZgZ
	ki7LQe/OXa3qhaeiYkxk5mz2ydg+46punhTQwEUXEFf2zI0pwk6pwuWxKCRmdNhsnfkH
	ZRePIqJwLvxoLv04RnZNFtHbhkOr20YEu9JBcYfGx2CS0QRE1Wt8pi7pAlpEcc2op2el
	P9SPBxJm4Ay0FuWOx84MgdtjPsCRFP24J0tRLLXpCuxl14VumXbGIqFIi8R8BcLDdTBD
	Cjg2WOl95FGxvzqNlcNmgMEvl3ADoNlVlBR2gj04LccvEQzNe2QXkwSGjOfbeTkC4wn7
	JDow==
X-Received:	by 10.194.116.170 with SMTP id jx10mr1426472wjb.166.1449604492776;
	Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:54:51 +0100
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] gsch2pcb after refdes-renum? (If implemented
	syncronization detail)
Message-Id:	<20151208205451.bb2478f8722e1a885822689d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<201512081819.tB8IJBrt022764@envy.delorie.com>
References:	<56658683 DOT 401 AT envinsci DOT co DOT uk>
	<CALT8Ef4=tMf=WmjYmp-2B3rN0SBmoqF5RkCoWZEm=+2hTBTENA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20151207153821 DOT c2ac19e6f24b1776a3595e4a AT gmail DOT com>
	<CD4C755E-8E00-427D-909C-3F762A038844 AT gmail DOT com>
	<20151208091411 DOT c8968b0bedb705765529176c AT gmail DOT com>
	<B2F4DA99-3254-4C97-A408-854445A09C21 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201512081819 DOT tB8IJBrt022764 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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

> > We've discussed this many times, and the problem is the unrestricted
> > semantics of symbol instance copying.
> 
> Is there any research being done on this type of tracking?  Given the
> large number of changes that can happen to a schematic between
> exports, it seems like you'd have to store the entire history in each
> component.  "The NAND gate U5 that was at X,Y in heirarchy A/B/C last
> Wednesday is now NOR gate U4 at X2,Y2 in heirarchy E/F/G".  Even a
> simple rename is dangerous if you accidentally run it twice.  It seems
> to me to be even more complex than merging patches in a big source
> tree.

Changes compare schematic file with pcb file so it is done manually and I guess it is fine like this. For idempotent changes applying them more than once make no difference.

Rename result in a new change if applied more than once but with a mechanism to make sure change is applied only once and not stuck in the middle everything would be fine. I might be stupid and the ExecuteFile(...) command in pcb already solved this?

Nicklas Karlsson

- Raw text -