Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> In order to control the sub-compositing of layers, I added a SL_FINISHED > callout to the set_layer() hook, so that the GL HID could track when it > needed to destroy / reassign resources used to sub-composite a given > layer. (Or to finish off the compositing operation). > > I don't expect this would cause any differences in behavior to git HEAD > code. It is doing something funky with Group8, which is the 'outline' layer in Marks board. My changes don't care about groups at all really, they are strictly PostScript header/format issues. Marks board worked fine with my GTK version. Is 'outline' a special case someplace? 'outline' is coming out as a page that has the markers and footer and nothing else (nothing within the markers), randomly every 2nd to 3rd page. Point me to your GL version and I'll try building it when I get home tonight. Don't think it is related but why is there a message coming out of SddErr, instead of being put in the log window, about 'outline' being drawn on the component and solder layers? Is this an error in the board file that causes this? Both Mark's board and mine do it. Stock version do this as well, so it is not related to my ps.c work. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 19:47 -0400, Bob Paddock wrote: > > You'll notice I'm using Peter Clifton's GL code from his nightly git > > repository. > > I'm using the stoke GTK under Linux. Peter is there > any difference in hid/ps/ps.c? Not sure why there would be > for GL? diff --git a/src/hid/ps/ps.c b/src/hid/ps/ps.c index d742a5f..cb96675 100644 --- a/src/hid/ps/ps.c +++ b/src/hid/ps/ps.c @@ -516,6 +516,10 @@ ps_set_layer (const char *name, int group, int empty) int idx = (group >= 0 && group < max_layer) ? PCB->LayerGroups.Entries[group][0] : group; + + if (SL_TYPE (idx) == SL_FINISHED) +return 0; + if (name == 0) name = PCB->Data->Layer[idx].Name; In order to control the sub-compositing of layers, I added a SL_FINISHED callout to the set_layer() hook, so that the GL HID could track when it needed to destroy / reassign resources used to sub-composite a given layer. (Or to finish off the compositing operation). I don't expect this would cause any differences in behaviour to git HEAD code. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:35:22 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > The disadvantage of just emailing patches is that we tend to lose track > of them. By the way, was my patch that allows action strings for command line pushed by anyone? If not, is there a technical reason? ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak tel: +49-511-762-2895 Universität Hannover, Inst. für Quantenoptik fax: +49-511-762-2211 Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover http://www.iqo.uni-hannover.de GPG key:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Knaak+kmk&op=get ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > The disadvantage of just emailing patches is that we tend to lose > track of them. I hear you. The company I work for uses something called patchwork to make sure patches don't get lost, they get delegated appropriately, etc. Some larger projects (notably the Linux kernel) use it. You can see an example of it here: http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/LKML/list/ The big downside would be that the gEDA project would have to setup/host/maintain the patchwork server, database, etc. > I don't mind if emailed patches are in git-patch form. Not that I > know what to do with them yet, but I've got to learn some day! Great, thanks! I generally just save the email containing the patch locally, then run "git am ". I don't do this frequently though and have to think there's more efficient way. There are also some clever scripts that the patchwork project uses to ease the process of downloading a patch, applying it, and updating the status on the project's patchwork website. Thanks, Peter ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
The disadvantage of just emailing patches is that we tend to lose track of them. I don't mind if emailed patches are in git-patch form. Not that I know what to do with them yet, but I've got to learn some day! ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB? >> Still the SourceForge Tracker? The ones there seem a bit dated. > > Yes, that's still the "right" way to do it, although for minor bug > fixes that "just apply" mailing to the list is probably more > efficient. Is it acceptable to use the "git send-email" command to send patches to this mailing list? Based on previous experiences with other open source projects that use git, this method seems to work well. I haven't used the sf.net Tracker before (so take any comments with a grain of salt...), but it seems like the policy of "all patches are posted to a mailing list" has a few advantages over using the sf.net Tracker: 1. Emailed patches have a wider audience and get more exposure. I'd imagine most people that subscribe to this mailing list don't check the sf.net Tracker regularly. Mailing list subscribers may have comments on a patch, or actually try it out if they see it come through the mailing list. 2. Its much easier for people to make specific comments to email patches - they just respond and comment inline. I'm not sure what the process of critiquing on the sf.net is, but I imagine it requires downloading a file from a website, cutting and pasting code, then sending an email with the comments or updating the patch tag on fs.net. 2. Some patches spur discussion which is good to capture on the mailing list. 3. Lots of other open source projects that use git the "post patches to the mailing list" philosophy, so its more likely to be familiar to other developers. 4. Its quicker/easier to use git "git XXX" command line tools to send patches than to upload a file to a website. It looks like you can only upload 1 file to the sf.net tracker which is also frustrating for patch series. 5. Downloading patches from sf.net seems more time consuming than saving them from your email client or using the "git am" command on a email mailbox. 6. Similar patch management features to the sf.net Tracker could be gotten using the open source "patchwork" project if those features were deemed necessary (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org) Anyway, I just wanted to give my perspective as a new gEDA user and clarify how I should send any future patches. Best, Peter ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
Larry Doolittle wrote: > On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 06:41:31PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: >>> is there any type of regression test suite for PCB? >> Nope. > > That, itself, sounds like a bug. > > - Larry It is, but I've never felt like I had enough of a clue on how to start writing one for pcb to get there. I did have a vague notion of wanting to start working on some small layouts that probed the boundary conditions for DRC and connection scanning, but I never quite figured out the framework for how this was run. I could also envision something that took designs, produced RS274-X files and let gerbv load them and XOR against a verified RS274-X file. As far as a pixel by pixel xor of png outputs, that is what we do for gerbv. We load files, export to png and do a pixel xor against reference png files. Problem is due to minute differences in numerical roundoff between various hardware involved, the testsuite complains loudly on many platforms. Enough so that I tend to generate a new set of reference png files, apply my source code changes, and test against my private reference files. At least that way I can detect a change. It would be good to make that testsuite more robust though. -Dan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> I'm not getting any errors with ghostview on Linux, either. > However, their > are many blank pages (group 8) being randomly >inserted into the output file. > Let me know if you would like to see the file. Please. Email it directly to me, and the PCB file and I'll figure out what I broke. > You'll notice I'm using Peter Clifton's GL code from his nightly git > repository. I'm using the stoke GTK under Linux. Peter is there any difference in hid/ps/ps.c? Not sure why there would be for GL? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
On Sunday 08 March 2009 06:10:31 pm Bob Paddock wrote: > If anyone wants to tryout those changes you can download > a new ps.c here: > > GSView on Windows now reports zero errors and > warnings. Page navigation also works correctly. gv on Linux > is also happy as far as I can tell, it had no complains all along. I'm not getting any errors with ghostview on Linux, either. However, their are many blank pages (group 8) being randomly inserted into the output file. Let me know if you would like to see the file. In order to build it I copied ps.c into pcjc2/src/hid/ps and did: make clean make make install You'll notice I'm using Peter Clifton's GL code from his nightly git repository. -Mark Stanley ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
DJ Delorie wrote: >> That, itself, sounds like a bug. One wag once said something similar about a CPU design project I was one. Paraphrasing: Just let some VP file a bug report that says: "Product XXX does not exist". Then we can just keep amending that one until we close it. That will greatly simplify having to remember various bug reference numbers. > > Perhaps, but none of us have felt up to the challenge of creating a > testsuite that involves multiple operating systems and image matching. Yes, well. Been there a number of times, too. As to the multiple OS issue, I'd say just pick one and then trust the ./configure stuff to make the rest work and just spot check them. The graphical output part is always nasty. Back when I managed a validation lab that Windows GUI software came through, we had a tool that did two things. 1. It intercepted the Windows API calls and allowed you to check expected values for window decorations and widget contents. ie: Did a window titled "Foo Editor" just pop up? Does it have a button named "Close"?, etc. It also allowed you to script in clicks and such forth so you could automated driving the GUI around. It was a darn tedious tool to use. 2. The other major feature was a pixel-XOR for selected windows. This was problematic, in that any changes caused a fail. You could specify regions (simple rectangles, I think) to be ignored. Anyway, that about exhausts my memory of the tool -- I was in a pointy-hair position at the time and didn't actually spend any time driving the tool. It strikes me that now that gerbv has a library with a nice API, we could do something like a pixel-XOR tool. It's a pretty crude way to check GUI programs, but for simple test cases it may suffice. Doesn't do much for screen comparisons, though. -dave > > > ___ > geda-user mailing list > geda-user@moria.seul.org > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user > ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> That, itself, sounds like a bug. Perhaps, but none of us have felt up to the challenge of creating a testsuite that involves multiple operating systems and image matching. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 06:41:31PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > is there any type of regression test suite for PCB? > Nope. That, itself, sounds like a bug. - Larry ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> is there any type of regression test suite for PCB? Nope. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
... > What I'm doing in ps.c: > > 1: > Running Lint over the code trying to understand what is going on. > Should I fix problems like local FILE *f; hiding global FILE *f? > Why are things like x2=x2 in there, shall I remove them? Looks > like something that at one time was a swap that has accumulated > to much bit rot. > > 2: > Add to table of contents "1. Table Of Contents (This Page)". > Starting with "2. ..." just looks broken to me. > > 3: > Add proper PostScript Document Structuring Conventions ( DSC ) > header, and fix %%Page to have proper label and number. > End result should be a Red Book compliant PostScript file, > which Windows can properly digest. ... If anyone wants to tryout those changes you can download a new ps.c here: http://www.designer-iii.com/gEDA/ps.c > Do you want one new ps.c or incremental diffs? Before I make a proper diff, is there any type of regression test suite for PCB? I'm not 100% sure that I covered all of the usages cases. The few that I did try Did The Right Thing. GSView on Windows now reports zero errors and warnings. Page navigation also works correctly. gv on Linux is also happy as far as I can tell, it had no complains all along. -- http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/ http://www.softwaresafety.net/ http://www.designer-iii.com/ http://www.unusualresearch.com/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> It really needs to end with a standard extension like .txt; > windows issue. .txt? Not the best. .fabnotes.txt > probably doesn't play well on Windows users either. > Seems best at the moment I guess. .fabnotes.txt is probably best; it follows the pattern we use for gerbers. > I'm not to that level of understanding of the pcb code yet, to > implement what I needed that way. Assuming I get there, how to you > get this attribute into the board file? We current have no GUI way of doing this, although I suppose you could add a fabnotes entry in the PS attribute list, prefill it from the board attribute, and update the board as needed. So far, we only have a function for creating a new attribute, not modifying one, as we only preserve the attribute list - nothing in pcb's core uses it yet. See CreateNewAttribute in create.c and WriteAttributeList in file.c for examples; feel free to add more functions if it makes sense to. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> A single diff for all those changes would be best, I think. Ok. > As for fabnotes, perhaps something more board-specific? Like > .fabnotes? It really needs to end with a standard extension like .txt; windows issue. .txt? Not the best. .fabnotes.txt probably doesn't play well on Windows users either. Seems best at the moment I guess. > Or have some attribute in the board indicate which > fab notes to use? I'm not to that level of understanding of the pcb code yet, to implement what I needed that way. Assuming I get there, how to you get this attribute into the board file? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
A single diff for all those changes would be best, I think. As for fabnotes, perhaps something more board-specific? Like .fabnotes? Or have some attribute in the board indicate which fab notes to use? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
>> What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for >>PCB? >> Still the SourceForge Tracker? The ones there seem a bit dated. > > Yes, that's still the "right" way to do it, although for minor bug > fixes that "just apply" mailing to the list is probably more > efficient. Not sure how minor they are. Right now I'm working on hid/ps.c . Then going to figure out something to do with lpr. Right now, in lpr, popen is not doing anything useful on Windows, it just flashes up an unreadable DOS box then returns. What I'm doing in ps.c: 1: Running Lint over the code trying to understand what is going on. Should I fix problems like local FILE *f; hiding global FILE *f? Why are things like x2=x2 in there, shall I remove them? Looks like something that at one time was a swap that has accumulated to much bit rot. 2: Add to table of contents "1. Table Of Contents (This Page)". Starting with "2. ..." just looks broken to me. 3: Add proper PostScript Document Structuring Conventions ( DSC ) header, and fix %%Page to have proper label and number. End result should be a Red Book compliant PostScript file, which Windows can properly digest. 4: If a file "FabNotes.txt" is found in the current directory include in the PS output. This puts everything of relevance, to me at least, in to a single file for my project record, and to give the board house when doing quotes. Do you want one new ps.c or incremental diffs? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
> What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB? > Still the SourceForge Tracker? The ones there seem a bit dated. Yes, that's still the "right" way to do it, although for minor bug fixes that "just apply" mailing to the list is probably more efficient. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB?
What is the current procedure and location to submit patches for PCB? Still the SourceForge Tracker? The ones there seem a bit dated. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=73743 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
