kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/14/2014 03:30 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> On 11.07.2014 19:20, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> In any case I think the CERN roadmap description for back annotation is over designed.
>> There are simpler ways to handle this than the ECO described in that writeup.
>>
>>
>> I would recommend that this item be scrapped and simplified.
> Dick,
> 
> I assume you meant the blueprint from the official Kicad roadmap (done 
> by Wayne):
> 
> --- snip ----
> - Provide forward and back annotation between the schematic and board 
> editors.
> - Define netlist file format changes required to handle pin/part swapping.
> - Update netlist file formatter and parser to handle file format changes.
> - Develop a netlist comparison engine that will produce a netlist diff 
> that can be passed between the schematic and board editors.
> - Create pin/part swap dialog to manipulate swappable pins and parts.
> - Add support to handle net label back annotation changes.
> ---- snip ----
> 
> Remember that whatever forward/back-annotation mechanism will be 
> implemented, it will have to handle:
> - pin/part/differential pair swapping
> - attribute annotation - take a microwave design as an example: the 
> parameters of a microstrip line/circulator/whatever_else inputted on the 
> PCB should be transferable back to the schematic (and the other way around).
> 
> Our proposal is just about comparing two netlists. Usability of such 
> tool would not be only limited to PCB<>schematic annotation. Think of 
> tracking changes between different versions of the design and 
> visualizing them in a human-understandable way.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom


Tom,

Please don't over estimate my resistance.  I am only leery of unnecessary complexity, and
I am willing to find different ways of doing things, even different from the best known
implementation.   Because if you are not different, you can never be better.

We have a textual representation of our data files, so we come into this with an advantage
over the couple of surviving high end commercial packages.  Diffs on a our design files
are possible, whereas diffs are on theirs are not.  So maybe they put the diffs into the
changes because that was the only way for them.  We can generate the diffs at any time
using a version control system and whole data files.

I don't want to steer this any more.  I am out.  Just be willing to think out of the box.
 This gives you the option of finding something even better than what you are trying to
equal.  And in the course of trying to define what qualifies as "better", please factor in
"simplicity" with some finite weighting.

We all appreciate your expertise and help.

Dick