Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/12/20/07:23:38
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:37:12AM +0000, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 11:18 +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> > > 2. Which set should get the "FOUND" flag assigned.. both, or just the
> > > physically connected ones.
> >
> > Well, this would imply a file format addition, no? Why not remove
> > the found flag in the saved files and ignore it on load for a start
> > (I never found, no pun intended, saving and restoring found and selected
> > flags to be very useful).
> >
> > Then you can split the found flag into 2 different flags:
> > found_and_physically_connected and found_by_following_rats
> > (I have not found, no pun intended again, better names).
>
> Its not a huge a file-format change, just an additional string it will
> recognise in the flags section. It shouldn't cause any harm if you have
> an unrecognised flag (aside some warnings), therefore does not make the
> file incompatible with older versions of PCB.
In this case, I would not mind dropping them from the file format.
> > I was using it quite frequently, so I'm glad that you realise that
> > you broke some people's workflow.
>
> Always seems to be the way when you "fix" something.
>
> [snip]
>
> > That's the eternal problem with software, once people have become
> > accustomed to a capability, you can't break their habits/workflow.
>
> Oh, we _can_ break them... ;)
Up to a point. I really need something idempotent for manual routing.
(And most of my boards need manual routing, when you have RF signals
up to 10GHz or higher, using for example coplanar waveguides, the first
thing to do is to route the high frequency signals and the bias lines
manually). There are typically few such signals, or there is a repeating
pattern when you have several channels, so manual routing is not a hassle.
> The question is really just when we should, and what the balance of
> pain / benefit looks like.
>
> The developers are not operating under the rule that we will never
> change behaviours, to do that would mean serious stagnation and possibly
> eventual death of the project.
>
> What we critically don't want to break, is existing _designs_, and of
> course.. we can be sympathetic to views about behavioural changes.
Well, some of my designs were broken by PCB upgrades, in the area of
copper pours if I remember correctly. I always keep the photoplotter
files I send to the manufacturer just in case I need a new batch (and
in one case it was useful since the manufacturer of the first batch
went bankrupt), but if I had to modify it...
> > > Try the split-colouring, and see what you think. I'm also going to
> > > experiment with de-saturating colours or increasing transparency on
> > > non-found objects in the GL renderer, to see how that feels.
> >
> > I will try over the week-end. I feel that split colouring might
> > work well enough.
>
> The idea is that it is an improvement over both old and current
> behaviours ;)
I can believe it. I really considered your previous patch a regression,
but color differentiation is going forward.
Gabriel
- Raw text -