X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <5321C71B.7030000@ecosensory.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:56:27 -0500
From: John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] identical symbol names
References: <CAG4ve9LgHNoVZoGaGgF67tadJ_n=L6Uy1g=UPPrkM0fL6Rgufw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<20140127234944 DOT 924148045B78 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>	<CAG4ve9+3jhFJ1Cr6CLUyLX_y02uigJECiUCwxjUWdP=heVocqg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<20140128201110 DOT DF7D78045B78 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>	<20140129072550 DOT GA24560 AT localhost DOT localdomain>	<CAG4ve9+v9QxNRaPSFkmGfr6bKsv7km-Gt_gwXF7Eh4TX+AmNug AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<CAOP4iL2JBUdF93kZF-iQ9Rv+VTN3iXoT+6C4LoBi5qaMxof=sA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<CAG4ve9+QsUf=nVXPe-f3VddGiqHn8sjZUJNkdu3QV1cOQDWiAg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<20140309173951 DOT 738798020179 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>	<531CF3BE DOT 8070407 AT ecosensory DOT com>	<CAG4ve9LKJS1RxPZxUdOSwFifQXoVJtJMOV=7PMs2vrjf70L1KQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAOP4iL3mQJjH_2gOZ1E=POzpiLuJKTxOu_FN7UD-=BfV6BOQ1w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOP4iL3mQJjH_2gOZ1E=POzpiLuJKTxOu_FN7UD-=BfV6BOQ1w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 03/10/2014 08:15 PM, Ouabache Designworks wrote:
> An organisation like gEDA  should keep all libraries under a revision control system that anyone can check out. Then you can
> easily check for updates and revisions. If you ship your project to someone else then they should also obtain the gEDA libraries
> from gEDA. They are the one source and hey should maintain  the golden copy.

There are other cases where this style is being used, and it makes sense for being able to stop mistakes,
even though it costs a little more work.

  code used to make web apps, a company is betting its life
of the argument that controlling your sources gets error free results and with automation, it can save
human effort.  This example I am talking about is docker, which is about using linux containers
to create separate environments for whole operating systems so little changes in FOSS programs
don't cause breakage that is not feasible to troubleshoot.  They use a global repository strategy
as part of the automation.

On 03/10/2014 01:28 PM, Roland Lutz wrote:> Maybe the second problem could be solved by "embedding" each symbol the first time it 
is referenced while marking the embedded
 > symbol as non-authoritative.  This way, the tools could use the included symbol in case the library symbol is not found

This idea might satisfy svetonomer, but in a large design it would inflate the file size.  The file size inflation
is probably OK though -- only maybe double.

I don't know how to deal with the library vs embedded symbol clash.  The only automatic case I can think of, is in
the case where an outside design is opened with gschem in a new project directory, then you would want to create
project libraries from the embedded symbols, and from then on, library contents override and overwrite embedded.

The case where two are alternating work on a design and sharing embedded schematics would need some kind of merge
at every receipt of an updated schematic.  That work flow is easier using a version control system and merging
a branch.  Using git or similar is fairly well documented and code that is robust already exists, so
going to a way to merge embedded schematic symbols with libraries is too much work and not going to happen.