On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 23:38 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 22:17 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Your patch doesn't apply cleanly to the current git head. Could you
send me an updated one as a single git patch?
Sure, find it attached. bzipped because I didn't want to offend
Because if you got any worthwhile changes to this stuff, you should
have committed them by now. If you haven't, then deal with it.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 23:38 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 22:17 -0400, DJ
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 12:30 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
Why are we committing bulk NOP changes like this for anyway? Because
they exist?
Also - it would appear the changes unintentionally changed some quoted
strings (caught when attempting to rebase my branches). I'm prepared to
accept some
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 12:30 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 23:38 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Pushed. First person who complains they have an old compiler,
volunteers to help us test a patch to support it :-)
Thanks a bloody BUNCH. The filter script in the commit message
Peter Clifton wrote:
Btw.. for those using my branches, you might like to re-fetch now.
Thanks!
I put an update on my todo list for the weekend.
BTW, your before pours branch works much better in real life projects than
the current head. Transparency is a big step forward in usability. The
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, kai-martin knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
Btw.. for those using my branches, you might like to re-fetch now.
Thanks!
I put an update on my todo list for the weekend.
BTW, your before pours branch works much better in real life projects than
the
Hi,
I have to design a board full of leds and a few additional parts.
I already designed a similar board, but it wasn't necessary to made
schematic, since there was only 2 components excluding leds (one
connector, and a resistor). So I created a script to place the leds
automatically, and
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 19:45 +0200, Tamas Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I have to design a board full of leds and a few additional parts.
I already designed a similar board, but it wasn't necessary to made
schematic, since there was only 2 components excluding leds (one
connector, and a resistor). So
Stefan Salewski wrote:
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 19:45 +0200, Tamas Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I have to design a board full of leds and a few additional parts.
I already designed a similar board, but it wasn't necessary to made
schematic, since there was only 2 components excluding leds (one
connector,
Tamas Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I think all of you can feel that putting 600+ leds to schematic and
changing refdes manually is a _little bit_ boring:-) (And takes quite
long time.)
Try JCL's code. I got it to work OK.
http://www.luciani.org/geda/util/matrix/index.html
John
--
Ecosensory
Hi Tamas,
On Samstag, 5. Juni 2010, Tamas Szabo wrote:
Stefan Salewski wrote:
Should be 10 copy/past operations (1, 2, 4, 8, ... ) in gschem. And
of course recent gschem can renumber fine. Should be less work than
writing this mail, or do i miss something?
Yes!
I tried it. Maybe it's
Peter Clifton wrote:
3. One portion of the polygon speed-up work uses GLib in PCB's core.
This means an extra dependency for all builds (currently only required
for GTK / toporouter). I'm inclined to push for GLib as a core
dependency - rather than re-writing that code (although it wouldn't
By the way what 'File order' means?
This is just the order in which the parts are in the schematic file and
in the internal object structure.
It's basicaly the placement order of the components into the schematic.
Thx.
___
geda-user mailing
Why are we committing bulk NOP changes like this for anyway? Because
they exist?
For various reasons.
* PCB is written in ancient code with archaic design. Modernizing it
makes it more palatable to a new generation of programmers.
* Modernizing PCB's code is a step towards even more
I think all of you can feel that putting 600+ leds to schematic and
changing refdes manually is a _little bit_ boring:-) (And takes quite
long time.)
Try JCL's code. I got it to work OK.
http://www.luciani.org/geda/util/matrix/index.html
John
Wow! It's great!
/sza2
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
I really want to encourage people to work on the code and become
contributors, and telling them their hard work is for naught because
someone somewhere might have an uncommitted patch that might be
affected, is not acceptable
On Saturday 05 June 2010 20:12:38 Jared Casper wrote:
IMHO the biggest thing that can be done on this front is to organize a
way to contribute. I'm guessing I would have done at least 2 - 3
times as much work on PCB in the past year or two if it didn't take an
average of three to four MONTHS
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 14:38 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Why are we committing bulk NOP changes like this for anyway? Because
they exist?
* Because he was willing to put in the effort to get it committed.
I really want to encourage people to work on the code and become
contributors, and
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 20:31 +0200, kai-martin knaak wrote:
Couldn't this be separated from the GL stuff?
(Probably).
6. (BIG JOB): I need to figure out how to make GL / GDK build time
selectable. When I started the branch, I just ripped out the GDK stuff
and replaced with GL code. This
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk wrote:
I have commit access to the PCB repo, and I'd be willing to take this on,
except for the two issues that a) I'm not as familiar with the PCB codebase as
many of the other developers, and b) I often disagree with DJ about
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 13:52 -0700, Jared Casper wrote:
However, I think a majority of contributions wouldn't or shouldn't
cause enough controversy or disagreement that the person willing to do
the work of verifying the patch can't just make the decisions. You
just need someone familiar
You say you want people to become contributers, but then don't have
the organization and/or man power to accept contributions. Either
one of the devs needs to step up and take charge of handling
contributions, or the devs need to extend their trust to someone
willing to do it.
Yup. This
DJ Delorie wrote:
You say you want people to become contributers, but then don't have
the organization and/or man power to accept contributions. Either
one of the devs needs to step up and take charge of handling
contributions, or the devs need to extend their trust to someone
willing to do it.
23 matches
Mail list logo
