X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:22:00 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Project leadership (design error in the core of
 gschem)
In-Reply-To: <C3D7084C-1A24-4266-806D-C337CFA17322@noqsi.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1512300716090.9035@igor2priv>
References: <CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CANEvwqiM7CKG+WpDRpG4L=HsmSEZ32=CBDyUhuk3ks-SNedL2Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512290406210 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
 <20151229094603 DOT 782092b57563336883546bfd AT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQ363RydhBJKMnNX5sLOkD1K4qVwb-PPwov3MT3D6MfdQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <449C2A4A-814E-4858-ACB3-82807A80BE8A AT noqsi DOT com> <CAM2RGhQD1b0NKLWNYyB-m1whgYJZeEH9syzSs4OZt+22D5hooA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300441390 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <E8E70657-A89A-4F51-B779-C24E029ABECA AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300611420 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <C3D7084C-1A24-4266-806D-C337CFA17322 AT noqsi DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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



On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:

>
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:29 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A common netlist/bom format with a canonical form (so equivalent netlists would be identical) would be a useful intermediate.
>>
>> Could work. To me, the current patch format is much cleaner. I already have fully working code both in pcb-rnd and gschem. If you implement an alternative solution that is at least as capable, let me know.
>
> I?m not saying get rid of your patch format. But you took a shortcut generally not available by having pcb make the patch directly.

False. I did make a shortcut, but on a totally different level of 
abstraction.

Look at how these changes happen (in pcb or anywher else). There's a model 
of the world in the tool; the user performs some actions; the tool 
converts these actions into changes in the model.

What I realized was this: instead of applying the changes to the model and 
then trying to regain the same changes by diffing two models, it's more 
efficient to just save the diff. Not because pcb, not because the netlist 
forma,t not because flow-specific things. Only because the actual user 
input _is_ a change, and this way I can avoid converting it 
forth-and-back.

I don't see any real advantage of not saving the diff but generating 
the changed model and then regenerating the diff later.

> Some more general approach is needed. Common, canonical forms of netlist 
> and BOM could drive patch file generation, and they could be useful for 
> other things (as others have noted).

Since you failed to prove that:

  - my approach was not generic

  - yours is more generic

  - and more generic is really needed

your conclusion is wrong.

Nevertheless, if you implement a fully working version of your approach, 
unlike you, I am willing to give it a try.