[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: Collaborative Development of Boards

Markus Hitter <mah@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Am 19.01.2011 um 22:27 schrieb Stephan Boettcher:
>> Markus Hitter <mah@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Am 18.01.2011 um 01:56 schrieb John Griessen:
>>>> I thought about this some more after sleeping last night, and what
>>>> Markus
>>>> is probably asking for is a position range sensitive diff or auto-
>>>> merge.
>>>> When people make changes in PCB that can be merged, it means they
>>>> are
>>>> working in different places, zones, quadrants...  IOW if you could
>>>> say easily *where* you were working was different and not
>>>> overlapping
>>>> another's work, an auto-merge would work -- if it only over-rode
>>>> layout
>>>> traces and footprints in the limited zone of the change made...
>>> That reminds me on an idea discussed here a few weeks ago: drop the
>>> current footprint logic and replace it with full fledged circuit
>>> layouts. You'd edit the sub-layout in it's own file and insert that
>>> into the total layout as a non-editable, but movable block.
>>> One possible drawback for both ideas: you can't route tracks through
>>> the "foreign" area/sub-layout, even if there's enough room after
>>> assembling the zones.
>> Why do you need that limitation?
> Without that limitation, a zone is no longer a zone and conflicts can
> happen. Doesn't apply for tracks drawn to the main layout, of course.
> Also doesn't apply to sub-layouts of undefined size, but then the idea
> of sectoring a board for different contributors becomes a bit
> limited.

Why?  If everybody sticks to a sublayout, at least the VCS merges will
not conflict.  If the drawn copper conflicts, that's what needs to be
cleaned up after the merge.  For efficient collaboration there should
be some aggrement about who draws where, but technically there should
not be any limits how sublayouts overlap.


geda-user mailing list