X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.ucs.cam.ac.uk/email/scanner/
Message-ID: <1356003432.4776.10.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Find rat lines - summary
From: Peter Clifton <pcjc2 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:37:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20121220101819.GA26060@visitor2.iram.es>
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>
	 <CAN0Jx-_+HNgHFNwjNkZRos--yRa9KWLeijjaE7zh5imjp5omuw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212150453530 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv>
	 <CAN0Jx-8mr2XmLHr7AzcTygk205H1H4_X1Y9VcQHw3zia5eGynQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	 <CAN-_CWyXNvnumf5OC+m-xRV0zMf3cCvyzLU3be_pC8DkNVZG0Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	 <1355861174 DOT 13534 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost>
	 <20121220101819 DOT GA26060 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.0-0ubuntu3 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 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.

[snip]

> 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... ;)

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.


> > 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 pulled an old demo board, removed a couple of bits of power plane, and
was immediately able to see just how isolated and fragmented bits of the
ground system had become.


-- 
Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>

Clifton Electronics