X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <569A3280.3030704@iee.org> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:07:28 +0000 From: "M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] LP1532611 (modular fie formats) fixes References: <56982D5A DOT 1020706 AT prochac DOT sk> <569A2DAC DOT 9070200 AT prochac DOT sk> In-Reply-To: <569A2DAC.9070200@prochac.sk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060108090903010803070909" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:oFn41eS7OizpM3O4sy2fTD84cVxhhpSOA+ScjrcI1ltn5tYCiWH sWlXsOqaDhShyj0SB7MlzNRoJxCTPgH1b6TTGziULYkAI86u+bdwhHkZT8IWT2GHncqyxIL QcWGQpawcHgesN2P2beJZY+BmAcHIKZBKvCvT2J5AjcNj1NMaH9Qtmb8U6uzvHQgaBheUAl lo98FVkmHybU2eJVnEPJg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:SaApRyseHHI=:HC2Bu/VAorszct8TAUAUUR GvaEeVIBTdqS1slTjOGJRMWLpqKAlVE1ZGPFQ8Q5J1dWWoiqkK8fSrcic1sZxIVfIPRMonySw hjDv9LQEoKbfiGn51/oYoukodp/phfCyUrSwHLSANSVe/nJ7nAhQcJ5hdbewyqEBp2nyhZJdW RF0e3jVWTVYlDBf1mVidLyAP1JMme7RG0AR1zxUOx9RNqSckhhHm7jdk1qyMbYVKIXpagydVI Jb8fAecUXHWorlkMJhTurHTxqoQZhxTdLzGjgPI/vVtIvwvrZrNhoQ74nBdnytWa6jYHUhF0t anjx0ImmDEU2IQT9Y8helfQndSUb3Y2ri4ecwAa4yumsxcxrtwMzOWUrN9/x3hGjMCiZw9R3Y KwFswU7qmcKXmuyVSOdUPit9jLoN0Q9iwZUYaRMJ1OjY+s0UHVWpiIo/Xj3zoVCWLFLfzBoy6 lmilTmSNTOQUCPc/ltu3YJNrrx5Z78dQMD8rNUnY18ktXfU56k74kgqgN6L4hyb+Hs1L0dvaJ kTQDeMsP0azF6YMcylXCSvg/6StdzfY6A7Ear3QAsk8J6iAsBWjp1g5hScCy97wI2Iz3KS643 yMRnKAs0ilUiwDlYeISa0L56dugx+SXutaVx8j2v2V7M8cnHiDY+bWKCz2O3MH0FljSgMeeDG h4BKBSpRIxNMidHjFlJo9wS5Re2xxaALFhIEcw4+azATGytw0SP3ERD0f83dqn9/YW+QHh5tF 1DGKChwZiSgWxWxj Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060108090903010803070909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/01/16 11:46, Milan Prochac (milan AT prochac DOT sk) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On 15. 1. 2016 2:51, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Milan Prochac (milan AT prochac DOT sk >> ) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com >> ] > > wrote: >> >> On 12. 1. 2016 20:23, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) >> [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com ] wrote: >> >> >> I'm working on this branch there are some minor issues. I'll >> push fixes to LP1532611_fixes >> >> >> Can you share details about the issues? I guess I can identify >> the culprit and prepare fix faster >> >> >> Attached is a patch showing roughly what I've found. The >> fftemplate.c is entirely in this patch but I didn't change anything >> in it besides including assert.h I think. >> > > The "patch" is not readable/applicable. Can you please provide the > copy without color ANSI sequences? > >> It comes down to a little more honoring of default format (e.g. >> making sure its in default position in format list in SaveAs, checks >> that only one defualt format is specified, and stuff to take care of >> situation where PCB->Filename is known and PCB->Fileformat not. Some >> or all of that last category of change may be uneeded with the patch >> you propose for invalid file arguments (which I think is the right >> fix for that). >> > > I will review my changes and ensure that PCB->Fileformat is valid when > PCB->Filename is known. The assignment of filename from commandline > was missed, but all other situations should be handled properly. > > Please note that patch LP1534373 is for PCB without modular file > format. It will require one more line to support modular formats - set > the default format along with filename of non-existing board. > >> I'd like for you to "own" this code for sure as you can almost surely >> improve it faster and better, but I'd like to start using it as >> well. If you aren't wanting to use git yet it would be nice to get >> you synced up with a repository version (one way or another, either >> you can sync to home/bert/LP1532611 or we could declare the edits in >> that branch premature and restart it with a new patch from you). You >> can then send patches to whoever owns the branch so people can track it. >> > > I will post all fixes to the existing LP as additional patches. Once > patch is published, I will not modify it or recall it. > > I am not very comfortable with the proposed development model (spread > patches over various private branches) as I do not see clear way from > bug report (with patch added) to its merging to master branch. > > Milan > > Yes, I'm not entirely sure why geda/pcb's development workflow is so badly broken. Developers should be working in their own forks of the code, developing features in a private branch of their fork, and then submitting Pull-Requests to the mainstream repo. At the risk of teaching a few people how to suck eggs (Advance apologies!) the following article demonstrates how this normally works, the key final stage being integration into the main repo: http://blog.scottlowe.org/2015/01/27/using-fork-branch-git-workflow/ . I'm pretty sure this workflow is not unique to Github, it's just become popular because of it. Anyone have any better suggestions, going forward? MJE >> Britton >> > --------------060108090903010803070909 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 16/01/16 11:46, Milan Prochac (milan AT prochac DOT sk) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
On 15. 1. 2016 2:51, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Milan Prochac (milan AT prochac DOT sk) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
On 12. 1. 2016 20:23, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

I'm working on this branch there are some minor issues.  I'll push fixes to LP1532611_fixes


Can you share details about the issues? I guess I can identify the culprit and prepare fix faster

Attached is a patch showing roughly what I've found.  The fftemplate.c is entirely in this patch but I didn't change anything in it besides including assert.h I think.


The "patch" is not readable/applicable. Can you please provide the copy without color ANSI sequences?

It comes down to a little more honoring of default format (e.g. making sure its in default position in format list in SaveAs, checks that only one defualt format is specified, and stuff to take care of situation where PCB->Filename is known and PCB->Fileformat not.  Some or all of that last category of change may be uneeded with the patch you propose for invalid file arguments (which I think is the right fix for that). 
 

I will review my changes and ensure that PCB->Fileformat is valid when PCB->Filename is known. The assignment of filename from commandline was missed, but all other situations should be handled properly.

Please note that patch LP1534373 is for PCB without modular file format. It will require one more line to support modular formats - set the default format along with filename of non-existing board.

I'd like for you to "own" this code for sure as you can almost surely improve it faster and better, but I'd like to start using it as well.  If you aren't wanting to use git yet it would be nice to get you synced up with a repository version (one way or another, either you can sync to home/bert/LP1532611 or we could declare the edits in that branch premature and restart it with a new patch from you).  You can then send patches to whoever owns the branch so people can track it.


I will post all fixes to the existing LP as additional patches. Once patch is published, I will not modify it or recall it.

I am not very comfortable with the proposed development model (spread patches over various private branches) as I do not see clear way from bug report (with patch added) to its merging to master branch.

Milan


Yes, I'm not entirely sure why geda/pcb's development workflow is so badly broken. Developers should be working in their own forks of the code, developing features in a private branch of their fork, and then submitting Pull-Requests to the mainstream repo. At the risk of teaching a few people how to suck eggs (Advance apologies!) the following article demonstrates how this normally works, the key final stage being integration into the main repo: http://blog.scottlowe.org/2015/01/27/using-fork-branch-git-workflow/ . I'm pretty sure this workflow is not unique to Github, it's just become popular because of it.
Anyone have any better suggestions, going forward?

MJE
Britton



--------------060108090903010803070909--