On Saturday 24 October 2009 00:33:41 Peter Clifton wrote:
I'm of the mind that we should (in an ideal world) _remove_ all
automatic attribute promotion (perhaps excepting the special case of
symversion), and define some new rules as to how an aggregate list of
attributes is constructed from a
On Saturday 24 October 2009 01:36:15 Peter Clifton wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:17 -0700, Jared Casper wrote:
Are you sure? I think that was deleted in this commit:
o_complex_copy() definitely still calls
o_complex_remove_promotable_attribs. Not sure why though.
Doh.. I didn't
On Saturday 24 October 2009 07:37:04 Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Saturday 24 October 2009 00:33:41 Peter Clifton wrote:
I'm of the mind that we should (in an ideal world) _remove_ all
automatic attribute promotion (perhaps excepting the special case of
symversion), and define some new rules as
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 07:57 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Ales' criteria is, Changing user workflows is verboten, apparently.
Which is fair enough.. but I'm not convinced how much this really
changes the work-flow.
___
geda-user mailing list
On Saturday 24 October 2009 15:21:22 Peter Clifton wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 07:57 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Ales' criteria is, Changing user workflows is verboten, apparently.
Which is fair enough.. but I'm not convinced how much this really
changes the work-flow.
I agree, as I
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 16:10 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Saturday 24 October 2009 15:21:22 Peter Clifton wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 07:57 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Ales' criteria is, Changing user workflows is verboten, apparently.
Which is fair enough.. but I'm not convinced
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:17 -0700, Jared Casper wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
This is a really nasty and troublesome issue, and there are lots of
subtleties which can catch you out - such as embedded complex objects.
I figured as much... :)
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Unless there is anyone available to work on implementing it, the point
is moot anyway!
While that is true, if those with enough experience and clout in the
project were to spend the time to agree on a plan, or a direction at
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 11:41 -0700, Jared Casper wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Unless there is anyone available to work on implementing it, the point
is moot anyway!
While that is true, if those with enough experience and clout in the
project
On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Saturday 24 October 2009 07:37:04 Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Saturday 24 October 2009 00:33:41 Peter Clifton wrote:
I'm of the mind that we should (in an ideal world) _remove_ all
automatic attribute promotion (perhaps excepting the
Hi all,
I'm working on a patch to libgeda and got in a little over my head so
wanted to get some help/feedback...
I wanted to make it possible to not promote visible attributes, as
previously, all visible attributes were automatically promoted. This
was annoying if say, I wanted the part number
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 15:58 -0700, Jared Casper wrote:
Hi all,
I'm working on a patch to libgeda and got in a little over my head so
wanted to get some help/feedback...
This is a really nasty and troublesome issue, and there are lots of
subtleties which can catch you out - such as embedded
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
This is a really nasty and troublesome issue, and there are lots of
subtleties which can catch you out - such as embedded complex objects.
I figured as much... :) Thank you for your detailed reply.
There isn't an easy
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:17 -0700, Jared Casper wrote:
Are you sure? I think that was deleted in this commit:
o_complex_copy() definitely still calls
o_complex_remove_promotable_attribs. Not sure why though.
Doh.. I didn't read the diff carefully enough. One call was shown
removed, but
14 matches
Mail list logo
