Bug with Renumber Parts?

On 8/19/2015 8:03 PM, Brendon Meyer wrote:

Really sorry if this question has come up before, I haven't found an

answer from googling and general searching so here it is ...

 

Version 7.3.0 for Mac OS X (64 bit)  Professional Edition

 

Not sure if this is a bug/feature or something that I'm just doing plain

wrong.

When I'm using the renumber parts, it actually doesn't appear to work

when you have multiple modules.

 

So, for example, I create a master sheet, and inside that, I create say

two modules - one called CPU and one called MEMORY (which Eagle then

goes and tacks on a '1' to the end of the name to form 'CPU:1' and

'MEMORY:1' (as the logical sheet numbers inside those modules).

If you try to renumber the parts in any sub module, or for that matter

even from the master/root sheet, you it just plumb doesn't work and I'm

at a loss to work out WHY.

The renumber.ulp has not been reworked to be able to handle modules so

as of this moment it doesn't work in this scenario. Nothing you've done

wrong, the ULP just doesn't support it at this moment.

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

CadSoft Guest wrote:

 

The renumber.ulp has not been reworked to be able to handle modules so

as of this moment it doesn't work in this scenario. Nothing you've done

wrong, the ULP just doesn't support it at this moment.

 

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

 

Hello Jorge, I hope you are doing well.

It's not the first time that an ULP stopped working.

Why is Cadsoft not maintaining the ULP's which come preinstalled with Eagle?

Either, remove them or update them before publishing a new version of Eagle.

This gives a very amateurish impression.

Kind Regards,

Joop

Hello Jorge, I hope you are doing well.

 

It's not the first time that an ULP stopped working.

Why is Cadsoft not maintaining the ULP's which come preinstalled with

Eagle?

Either, remove them or update them before publishing a new version of

Eagle.

This is a bit of catch-22. Not everyone is using the hierarchical

feature of EAGLE, so if we remove it we eliminate functionality that

they had before even if it's not fully up to date with the current

release. So removing them is not a good option.

With more man power and some relaxed deadlines updating every affected

ULP would be the ideal solution, but we don't have the resources or the

time due to the demands of our parent company.

I think the most reasonable solution for the time being is to note which

ULPs don't support what new feature and have that in the documentation.

I'll bring this up to the attention of our devs and management and see

what wee can do.

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

CadSoft Guest wrote:

... due to the demands of our parent company.

This is very bad news. Is the Cadsoft team still happy with the aquisition by Farnell?

On 8/24/2015 2:58 PM, Joop14 wrote:

CadSoft Guest wrote:

 

... due to the demands of our parent company.

 

This is very bad news. Is the Cadsoft team still happy with the

aquisition by Farnell?

Hi Joop,

I can only speak for myself. In general, I think the acquisition has

been positive. EAGLE has grown a lot since the acquisition and for the

most part we are allowed to run close to the way we did before.

But like any acquisition, there are new factors that create difficulties

and pressures that weren't there before. It just comes with the

territory. We are the first software company Farnell owns and there is a

large learning curve when you are used to selling physical hardware to

now selling software and the differences between the two types of

products. I hope things will get better as time goes on.

We are just going to keep doing the best work we can and make EAGLE the

best program it can be with the resources we have and may have in the

future. I feel good working here and look forward to contributing as

much as I can.

hth,

Jorge Garcia

On 8/24/2015 2:58 PM, Joop14 wrote:

CadSoft Guest wrote:

 

... due to the demands of our parent company.

 

This is very bad news. Is the Cadsoft team still happy with the

aquisition by Farnell?

Hi Joop,

I can only speak for myself. In general, I think the acquisition has

been positive. EAGLE has grown a lot since the acquisition and for the

most part we are allowed to run close to the way we did before.

But like any acquisition, there are new factors that create difficulties

and pressures that weren't there before. It just comes with the

territory. We are the first software company Farnell owns and there is a

large learning curve when you are used to selling physical hardware to

now selling software and the differences between the two types of

products. I hope things will get better as time goes on.

We are just going to keep doing the best work we can and make EAGLE the

best program it can be with the resources we have and may have in the

future. I feel good working here and look forward to contributing as

much as I can.

hth,

Jorge Garcia