On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 01:02 -0500, Dan McMahill wrote: > What are the chances of getting a dialog that says "I'm gonna rip out > these elements, is that ok?" first? Maybe even have this in spreadsheet > like format where you can check/uncheck items. I'm thinking of the case > where maybe you added mounting holes or something and havent' back > annotated them to the schematic yet.
Flexibility is good, but a workflow that integrates revision control is even better. Can't count how many times in my current project I've gone "oops, that's not right!" and quickly reverted to my last git commit rather than worrying about whether I can really undo a complex sequence of changes like those that happen when you muck up a forward annotation pass... > How about an "autoplace" vs "manual place" option? Or maybe you get > prompted to draw a box where you want stuff dumped? That's an interesting thought. > Do you tell the user and let them decide > (and maybe catch some places where they didn't backannotate) or just > force schematic precedence? I'd at least like the option to be able to force precedence. Ideally, I'd like to be able to forward or back annotate with the ability to resolve conflicting changes, but in all honesty, I could live a long time with less than that as long as there's an easy way to ensure that my schematic and pcb databases are in sync with each other at the end of an operation. > I think the toughest ones are the ones where you are replacing some > aspect of an existing element. Maybe it's a different footprint, maybe > it is a part number change, maybe a pin name change, etc. I get pin numbering wrong on new footprints more often than I care to admit... Bdale _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list geda-dev@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
