X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38
X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3784CFD5-4C80-4F64-8E1C-35A4453122AC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Project leadership (design error in the core of gschem)
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1512300716090.9035@igor2priv>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:47:34 -0700
Message-Id: <E5C6D693-D7F1-41B0-934F-CBAFD710D67E@noqsi.com>
References: <CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CANEvwqiM7CKG+WpDRpG4L=HsmSEZ32=CBDyUhuk3ks-SNedL2Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512290406210 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <20151229094603 DOT 782092b57563336883546bfd AT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQ363RydhBJKMnNX5sLOkD1K4qVwb-PPwov3MT3D6MfdQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <449C2A4A-814E-4858-ACB3-82807A80BE8A AT noqsi DOT com> <CAM2RGhQD1b0NKLWNYyB-m1whgYJZeEH9syzSs4OZt+22D5hooA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300441390 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <E8E70657-A89A-4F51-B779-C24E029ABECA AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300611420 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <C3D7084C-1A24-4266-806D-C337CFA17322 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300716090 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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


--Apple-Mail=_3784CFD5-4C80-4F64-8E1C-35A4453122AC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:22 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:

>=20
>=20
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:29 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> A common netlist/bom format with a canonical form (so equivalent =
netlists would be identical) would be a useful intermediate.
>>>=20
>>> Could work. To me, the current patch format is much cleaner. I =
already have fully working code both in pcb-rnd and gschem. If you =
implement an alternative solution that is at least as capable, let me =
know.
>>=20
>> I?m not saying get rid of your patch format. But you took a shortcut =
generally not available by having pcb make the patch directly.
>=20
> False. I did make a shortcut, but on a totally different level of =
abstraction.

Only available to the geda-gaf->pcb flow.

>=20
> Look at how these changes happen (in pcb or anywher else). There's a =
model of the world in the tool; the user performs some actions; the tool =
converts these actions into changes in the model.
>=20
> What I realized was this: instead of applying the changes to the model =
and then trying to regain the same changes by diffing two models, it's =
more efficient to just save the diff. Not because pcb, not because the =
netlist forma,t not because flow-specific things. Only because the =
actual user input _is_ a change, and this way I can avoid converting it =
forth-and-back.

But you can=92t do this for, say, geda-gaf->Osmond PCB without helper =
scripts. Not that this is hard, and in this case I=92ve actually written =
much of what is needed already.

>=20
> I don't see any real advantage of not saving the diff but generating =
the changed model and then regenerating the diff later.

There is no advantage, except that most downstream tools can=92t save =
the diff and are not open source. So, we need a more general mechanism, =
much of which would be useful in other ways anyway

>=20
>> Some more general approach is needed. Common, canonical forms of =
netlist and BOM could drive patch file generation, and they could be =
useful for other things (as others have noted).
>=20
> Since you failed to prove that:
>=20
> - my approach was not generic
>=20
> - yours is more generic
>=20
> - and more generic is really needed
>=20
> your conclusion is wrong.

I don=92t understand this. Our approaches are not in conflict. But yours =
won=92t work with anything but your pcb variant since other downstream =
tools can=92t directly make your patch file. All I=92m suggesting is =
that the problem of accommodating other downstream flows could use a =
common tool to generate your patch file via common canonical formats.

>=20
>=20



John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com



--Apple-Mail=_3784CFD5-4C80-4F64-8E1C-35A4453122AC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=FxkR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_3784CFD5-4C80-4F64-8E1C-35A4453122AC--