Hi jp, On 19.05.2016 19:44, jp charras wrote:
> It could be worth to *clearly* explain in your patches what bug you want to > fix, or what enhancement > you are adding. Good point. The last batch has two goals: 1. fix a long-standing annoyance that deleting a line segment will delete the entire length of wire, even when I want to delete only a short piece. http://psi5.com/~geier/wires.ogv shows what I mean. 2. prepare for net ties -- these need to split nets, so having code in place to split wires at certain points will have nice synergy effects. For the most part, I've been posting these as a heads-up and RFC; if the benefit is obvious, it's fine to apply them, but I'm not unhappy if they aren't applied immediately, because I'm more interested in things that are obviously wrong or that I've overlooked, and my patch stack is rebased on top of the current state every time I update anyway. "Serious" patch submissions start with a [PATCH 00/nn] mail that doesn't contain a patch and explains the rationale fully, and have longer descriptions in each separate patch (and incidentally, it'd be nice to keep those somehow). Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
