On 05/11/2012 08:13 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:49:54AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> I should also mention that ALL parts are always in the parts list with the
>> new design. So
>> the need to move parts from one library to another is significantly reduced.
>>
On 05/11/2012 09:54 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
> Le 11/05/2012 14:44, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
>> On 05/10/2012 02:34 PM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
>>> Le 10/05/2012 18:21, Moses McKnight a écrit :
>>> ...
In the new designs, when you add a symbol, does it have a tag telling
which
On 05/11/2012 07:49 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
On 05/11/2012 07:44 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
On 05/10/2012 02:34 PM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 18:21, Moses McKnight a écrit :
...
In the new designs, when you add a symbol, does it have a tag telling which
library it came from?
On 5/11/2012 9:06 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 01:57 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
>> Keeping alterations separate is a lot of work, since refactoring tends
>> to be a recursive process
>
>
> Agreed, it is a lot of work now. (So is reading and approving a big patch.)
>
>
> One
Le 11/05/2012 14:44, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
On 05/10/2012 02:34 PM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 18:21, Moses McKnight a écrit :
...
In the new designs, when you add a symbol, does it have a tag telling which
library it came from? Currently if two libraries have
a part with the
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:06:29AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 01:57 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> > Keeping alterations separate is a lot of work, since refactoring tends
> > to be a recursive process
>
>
> Agreed, it is a lot of work now. (So is reading and approving a bi
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:49:54AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> I should also mention that ALL parts are always in the parts list with the
> new design. So
> the need to move parts from one library to another is significantly reduced.
> But I agree
> that the problem you mention needs to be
2012/5/11 Lorenzo Marcantonio
>
> > Hehehe, I run automated tests on my client's software, every time I
> upload
> > changes to the svn, it's downloaded, built, and some automated
> > unit tests are done.
>
> Unit testing is cool if class are designed for it. IIRC GUI tests are
> done sending 'fa
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:44:06AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> We are all entitled to our opinions. I think the current design is broken,
> and the
> ambiguity of which "partname" is chosen, is a bigger problem than any you
> mention below:
The current design *has* problem; the 'cache' libr
On 05/11/2012 01:57 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> Keeping alterations separate is a lot of work, since refactoring tends
> to be a recursive process
Agreed, it is a lot of work now. (So is reading and approving a big patch.)
One way to do this refactoring work, future-istically speaking, i
On 05/11/2012 07:44 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 02:34 PM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
>> Le 10/05/2012 18:21, Moses McKnight a écrit :
>> ...
>>> In the new designs, when you add a symbol, does it have a tag telling which
>>> library it came from? Currently if two libraries have
>>>
On 05/10/2012 02:34 PM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
> Le 10/05/2012 18:21, Moses McKnight a écrit :
> ...
>> In the new designs, when you add a symbol, does it have a tag telling which
>> library it came from? Currently if two libraries have
>> a part with the same name, the part will be pulled fro
Le 11/05/2012 11:27, Brian Sidebotham a écrit :
On 10 May 2012 20:11, jean-pierre charras wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 11:10, Brian Sidebotham a écrit :
On 10 May 2012 09:50, Lorenzo Marcantonio
wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:24:36AM +0100, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
Hi guys,
At some point the
On 10 May 2012 20:11, jean-pierre charras wrote:
> Le 10/05/2012 11:10, Brian Sidebotham a écrit :
>
>> On 10 May 2012 09:50, Lorenzo Marcantonio
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:24:36AM +0100, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
Hi guys,
At some point the bus width changed fr
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:11:05AM +0200, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> Ohohoho 'XDDD poor clients :-D
Really fun thing is that the test environment was the *exact* copy of
the production one. So much for bank privacy!
> Hehehe, I run automated tests on my client's software, every time I uploa
2012/5/11 Lorenzo Marcantonio
>
> I did banking code in COBOL for the 2K issue... there not much worse
> than realigning structs by column number in a sort control card XD (I
> personally 'killed' 12 customers during preproduction deployment
> since they didn't match and were marked inactive:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:20:50AM +0200, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> Yes, I had the feeling that it was a lot of work, if it causes you trouble
> may be it's just better to identifty all the affected parts and write a test
> procedure that we all could replay "as robots", but robots that
> fo
Yes, I had the feeling that it was a lot of work, if it causes you trouble
may be it's just better to identifty all the affected parts and write a test
procedure that we all could replay "as robots", but robots that
for sure will add their own style since we're all humans (luckily :D )
Greetings :
Patches are bad, it seems... I don't see components anymore :((
--
Lorenzo Marcantonio
Logos Srl
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-dev
19 matches
Mail list logo
