X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:27:45 +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] Find rat lines - summary
In-Reply-To: <1355587723.7067.40.camel@monster>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1212151919590.26605@igor2priv>
References: <20121204183305 DOT 6b04c0dc AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org>  <20121208112649 DOT 388a9d22 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org>  <1355011808 DOT 19390 DOT 8 DOT camel AT localhost>  <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212120740300 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv>  <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212122128060 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> 
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212141144250 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv>  <1355585479 DOT 7067 DOT 26 DOT camel AT monster> <1355587723 DOT 7067 DOT 40 DOT camel AT monster>
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 Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Felipe De la Puente Christen wrote:

>      Does it make any sense?

Yes, it does. Similar ideas have been discuscussed in this thread earlier 
with results similar to yours. There are mainly two directions:
  - assign new copper to existing networks automaticly (upon first touch;
    I/2. in the updated list in svn)
  - request the user to specify such network assignment for each new object
    in some way (III/1. on the updated list)
  - a combination of the two (works automaticly but the user has full
    control over the results by means of changing any assignment any time;
    III/2. on the updated list)

To me, currently it seems the best approach would be to use the 
combination _and_ one of the minimal cut ideas in parallel. This would 
allow the user to use tagging as much as (s)he finds reasonable, between 
no tagging at all and tediously tagging every piece of copper ever existed 
in the history of the board. Whenever tagging can reveal a short, PCB 
should use that info and fall back on the minimal cut otherwise.

I personally would use this feature to tag my large networks (VCC, GND) 
but would leave the rest untagged.

Regards,

Tibor