Hello everyone,
Peter Brett seems to have gone mad... he's triaging bugs and coding
fixes at an astonishing rate. Rather than our newly imported bugs in
Launchpad sitting abandoned and ignored, they are being FIXED!
There are a lot of bugs which are still New, ie.. haven't been
confirmed or
On Friday 07 January 2011 10:14:19 Peter Clifton wrote:
Grab git HEAD of whichever package the bug is in (if you don't have it
already), and try to confirm whether the bug is still present or not.
Bug present: New - Confirmed
Bug absent: Make a comment - set bug to Invalid,
Den 2011-01-07 01:31:28 skrev Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de:
Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
First I manually set the ”device=” to match existing components,
No need. The device attribute is not used by anything in the gschem
to pcb work flow.
then I added ”numslots=” to match.
This is
Colin D Bennett wrote:
The orthogonality
of these three pieces (schematic, footprint mapping, and PCB layout) is
pleasing to me, but I have to admit that you would rarely find a need
to create different PCBs from the exact same schematic.
ack. Up to now, I _never_ had this situation in
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:21:29 +0100
Kai-Martin Knaak kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de wrote:
Colin D Bennett wrote:
The orthogonality
of these three pieces (schematic, footprint mapping, and PCB
layout) is pleasing to me, but I have to admit that you would
rarely find a need to create
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:22:53 +
Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk wrote:
Please use Fix released only if the fix has been in a released
version (the latest release was 1.6.1). Otherwise, use Fix
committed.
Is there any special tag or status indicator I can use for a bug which
has a
On Friday 07 January 2011 20:55:31 Colin D Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:22:53 +
Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk wrote:
Please use Fix released only if the fix has been in a released
version (the latest release was 1.6.1). Otherwise, use Fix
committed.
Is there any
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:14:19 +
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
There are a lot of bugs which are still New, ie.. haven't been
confirmed or triaged yet, and I'd like to encourage EVERYONE to come
and help with that task.
I have a question regarding the validity of the following bug:
The minimimum size is still set to 1000, but was never updated when we
switched to centimils, so the smallest board is now limited to 10 mils!
Yes, the GTK sizes dialog still enforces it!
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
Colin D Bennett co...@gibibit.com writes:
OK, just realized that the solder mask was going to cover the mounting
holes on my board after reading this bug report. It seems like the
default for holes (i.e., not plated) should be no solder mask over
them. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:15 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Hi,
Kai-Martin has rightly pointed out that by default, users don't have
access to set certain flags on bugs - such as priority. This comes in
handy if you know you're submitting a feature-request (which by default,
should be the
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:59 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:15 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Hi,
Kai-Martin has rightly pointed out that by default, users don't have
access to set certain flags on bugs - such as priority. This comes in
handy if you know you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.01.2011 20:21, schrieb Kai-Martin Knaak:
Colin D Bennett wrote:
The orthogonality
of these three pieces (schematic, footprint mapping, and PCB layout) is
pleasing to me, but I have to admit that you would rarely find a need
to create
I would like some field that the release managers can use for scheduling
if/when a bug/patch/feature should be in a release. I.e. if I tag a bug
as next bug release, then the next bug release has to wait until that
bug is fixed, but future bug release won't hold it back. Etc.
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 18:47 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
I would like some field that the release managers can use for scheduling
if/when a bug/patch/feature should be in a release. I.e. if I tag a bug
as next bug release, then the next bug release has to wait until that
bug is fixed, but future
Hi Peter B, Peter C.
Just noted that git fetch of git://git.gpleda.org/gaf reports
two branches. origin/master and origin/stable-1.6 . What is the
significance of these? Where should I look for the brave new features
that get pushed in the aftermath of the move from sourceforge to
launchpad?
On Saturday 08 January 2011 02:02:38 Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Hi Peter B, Peter C.
Just noted that git fetch of git://git.gpleda.org/gaf reports
two branches. origin/master and origin/stable-1.6 . What is the
significance of these? Where should I look for the brave new features
that get
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 03:02 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Hi Peter B, Peter C.
Just noted that git fetch of git://git.gpleda.org/gaf reports
two branches. origin/master and origin/stable-1.6 . What is the
significance of these? Where should I look for the brave new features
that get
Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
So, if I decide to use a 74-power symbol after all, is there
any way I can design it making it automatically understand
where it belongs,
No.
so I don't need to manually enter all those ”U1, U2, U3” und
so weiter?
Even if you don't use the power symbol, you
Peter Clifton wrote:
I've added you to the geda-bugs team,
Thanks!
I noticed more options shown when I log into launchpad.
but that might well mean
you get spammed with a lot of bug-mail (sorry!)
If that is the case, let me know if it is a problem, and we'll
investigate if it is
Stefan Salewski wrote:
For footprint shape that is correct -- for slots and pin numbers not.
Slot numbers and their influence on pin numbers can safely be ignored
in the first stages of schematic capture. With single/dual/quad
packages it is not that simple. No algorithm could reliably guess
Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de writes:
(I smell the scent of a feature request ;-)
Like http://www.delorie.com/pcb/pin-mapping.html ?
That lets the designer defer slot, package, and pin assignments until
layout time.
It assumes there's a unique identifier (not the refdes!) for each
Peter Clifton wrote:
PS: Any Peter A. around :-?
I'm just heading to bed, and IIRC from IRC, so was Peter B.
I was thinking like Peter A., Peter B., Peter C, ...
---)kaimartin(---(finally heading for bed, too)
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
Email: k...@familieknaak.de
Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel:
Dietmar Schmunkamp wrote:
Start a design with gschem -- simulate it -- get it thru
pcb -- extract physical paramaters from the layout -- OPTIMIZE* --
feedback to gschem -- restart the loop.
Unfortunately, at the current state of geda and friends the simulate
step is a weak spot. Not so much
24 matches
Mail list logo
