Mail Archives: geda-user/2013/09/01/10:26:45
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013, Markus Hitter wrote:
> I find all three of them very useful! For example, this intconn thing.
> So far the only solution I could find was to add a layer just for this
> internal connection.
I am happy to hear that.
>
>
>> The only patch I could extract is from my svn; if anyone wants to invest
>> the time to merge it with current versions (but I based my branch on the
>> last stable release, which is like 2 years old), attached. It doesn't
>> add an UI for editing those unknown flags. Since this patch was for my
>> fork, I did not follow the (inconsistent) whitespace and naming
>> conventions of the existing code.
>
> I searched versions back to 2006 to find a version where globals.h fits,
> but couldn't find one. As I don't really understand what the code in the
> patch does, it'd be a bit of gambling to force it in regardless.
I've started mine from the debian patched version of release 20110918; it was
the first code commited to the repo, so getting diffs based on this should be
easy.
> How about putting your whole work into the central repo?
I am not against it, as long as it doesn't cost me any time. In other words: my
work is in a public svn repo (with micro commits, tagged commit messages, etc);
if a volunteer may be willing to copy and merge my changes to the central repo,
it could work.
> Questions to the audience:
>
> - Do the above three approaches look good? Better ideas on how to
> implement the functionality (i.e. without a pin flag)?
>
> - With all three examples implemented, is it still a good idea to allow
> arbitrary flags?
Yes. I am working on more features, and some of them may need new flags. I
think it's generally a good idea to make PCB keep anything it does not
understand, especially if it's as easy as with these flags. I see no reason why
it should delete them.
Regards,
Tibor
- Raw text -