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]" 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> <20151207153821 DOT c2ac19e6f24b1776a3595e4a AT gmail DOT com> <20151208091411 DOT c8968b0bedb705765529176c AT gmail 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > > 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