On 3/17/2013 9:07 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 3/17/2013 4:52 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
Wayne,
We need your approval, no or no go.
We can also table it somewhere until the fp lib table smoke clears.
I just tried to apply this patch and it failed against r4017. The last
version I have of this patch had a suffix of 6. I did take a look at it
I just checked the mailing list and saw that the patch is up to suffix
8. I must have missed it. I'll try to test it tomorrow.
and it I may hold off until the footprint table code is ready. The
reason being is it may add confusion to the library ordering issue.
Users may think that they can now safely select a footprint or component
with a duplicate without regard to library ordering which could cause
more confusion than we already have on this issue. The other problem
will be that this dialog is used for both Eeschema and Pcbnew so we may
to tweak it to handle both the current library path sort order and the
footprint library table methods. I suppose I could create a new dialog
for selecting footprints using the footprint library table and keep the
current dialog for selecting components in Eeschema until we get the new
file format and SWEET implemented. I would like to apply this patch and
test it's behavior before I give it the OK.
On Mar 17, 2013 12:09 PM, "Carl Poirier" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
By the way, uncrustify was telling me about unknown symbols which I
believe may be some mistake on my side, so I just commented out the
lines in the aformentioned tool to get it to work. I forgot to
remove them before creating the patch though so just ignore this
change or look at this one instead!
Carl
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Carl Poirier
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I found a few other kinks in the coding style of the patch using
the checkcoding.py tool from Miguel and made sure it still
compiles fine using the latest revision.
Please let me know if everything is alright.
Carl
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Carl Poirier
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hi Dick,
I just wanted to have a follow-up on that patch. Is
everything alright?
Thanks,
Carl
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Carl Poirier
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hi Dick,
Thanks for pointing that out. This one should hopefully
do the trick.
Carl
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Dick Hollenbeck
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 03/07/2013 10:39 AM, Carl Poirier wrote:
> + for(unsigned i = 0; i < itemList.size(); i++)
for( unsigned i = 0; i < itemList.size(); i++ )
in 4 or more places.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list:
https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
<https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers>
Post to : [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Unsubscribe :
https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
<https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
