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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
Precedence: bulk

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/