Le 24/11/2019 à 07:58, Alexander Shuklin a écrit :
> Hi Eeli and Brian,
> Sorry for delay, unfortunately I cannot answer too often.
>
>> It has occurred to me (Alexander please chime in) that once back annotation
>> has been solved subject to all the issues raised by Wayne and others that it
>>
Hi Eeli and Brian,
Sorry for delay, unfortunately I cannot answer too often.
> It has occurred to me (Alexander please chime in) that once back annotation
> has been solved subject to all the issues raised by Wayne and others that it
> would be a general solution.
Unfortunately no. All stuff
The attempt I took on adding TLF is live.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 8:45 AM Wayne Stambaugh
wrote:
> Hi Sujith,
>
> I got it. Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> On 11/22/19 10:09 PM, Sujith Anandan wrote:
> > Hello Wayne,
> >
> > I have already added you as page admin, please accept the
It has occurred to me (Alexander please chime in) that once back annotation has been solved subject to all the issues raised by Wayne and others that it would be a general solution. Of course, this would end up being a sizeable change to Kicad since the various edit functions, etc., who have to be
la 23. marrask. 2019 klo 14.52 Brian Piccioni (br...@documenteddesigns.com)
kirjoitti:
> By having a single integrated tool analogous to “Update PCB From
> Schematic” can ensure coherency.
>
Can this do other kinds of changes than just annotation? I'm thinking of
changing the footprint or value.
I just added a enhancement in Pcbnew:
After updating the PCB from schematic, the pin names (pin functions) are
now stored in Pads.
When not empty, they are shown in the message panel (bottom of the pcb
editor frame) among other pad settings (like netname).
This enhancement is due to the fact
Hi,
this is not meant for immediate merging, but maybe of interest to some:
this patch splits the test cases inside the Boost.Test based tests in a way
that is visible to CTest.
The downside is that running the tests now takes ages because Boost.Test
setup is really slow, the upside is that
---
CMakeModules/BoostTest.cmake | 204 +++
CMakeModules/BoostTestAddTests.cmake | 138 ++
qa/CMakeLists.txt| 1 +
qa/common/CMakeLists.txt | 6 +-
qa/eeschema/CMakeLists.txt | 2 +-
Thanks Seth,
I'm on Mac only (my linux box hasn't been powered on since 5 years or so).
The code I touched should not look different depending on platform. I guess
any difference would rather be in how colors are presented (considering the
#ifdef MAC around default selection-highlight color), but
Hi Sujith,
I got it. Thank you.
Cheers,
Wayne
On 11/22/19 10:09 PM, Sujith Anandan wrote:
> Hello Wayne,
>
> I have already added you as page admin, please accept the request you
> will get in facebook.
>
> Thanks.
> Sujith
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:15 AM Wayne Stambaugh
Indeed. I’ve had geographical annotation in c++ working for some time now. Having different commands in PCBNew and eeSchema could lead to all sorts of nightmares. During testing I found myself with “half done” projects where I had inadvertently got the annotation on the PCB and schematics out of
Eeli and Carsten Thanks for the additional info. The reason I was working of the git information was in response to Simon earlier in this thread who suggested it. If git was the way to go I wanted to include it because people like me find that there is typically plenty of instructions regarding
Well,
I cannot make back annotation in python, it has to be c++. Actually
that's why I jumped on that problem. Because once it's done you can
use python for geometrical annotation. Actually I've seen python
script to do that, but it parses sch file like plain text, which is
bad.
Python scripts can
On 23/11/19 10:05, Alexander Shuklin wrote:
Hi Dino,
I would say "back annotation" and "geographical annotation" are just
different things. We with Brian plan to implement both of them.
Basically when you want to get references from board and apply them to
corresponding schematic, that back
la 23. marrask. 2019 klo 11.11 Carsten Schoenert (c.schoen...@t-online.de)
kirjoitti:
> Hello Eli,
>
> Am 23.11.19 um 10:03 schrieb Eeli Kaikkonen:
> > BTW, it's unnecessarily verbose to say "git pull origin master". Just
> > "git pull" is enough when you are in the local master branch.
>
> no
Hello Eli,
Am 23.11.19 um 10:03 schrieb Eeli Kaikkonen:
> BTW, it's unnecessarily verbose to say "git pull origin master". Just
> "git pull" is enough when you are in the local master branch.
no it's not.
Your statement is only true if the user hasn't added one ore more
remotes. If you have only
Hi Wayne,
thanks, now I think I understood all that cases. I'll go back to code
and will take care of them.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 20:00, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>
> I would prefer that you did ask questions rather than spending a lot of
> development time on a solution that would not be accepted
Hi Dino,
I would say "back annotation" and "geographical annotation" are just
different things. We with Brian plan to implement both of them.
Basically when you want to get references from board and apply them to
corresponding schematic, that back annotation. If you re-annotate
footprints in PCB
la 23. marrask. 2019 klo 4.05 Brian Piccioni (br...@documenteddesigns.com)
kirjoitti:
> Can Simon or somebody who understands such things verify that the
> following is correct so I can update my recipe?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> In Mingw64
>
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
