Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: PCB version control
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:44:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vrsjna$1q7cg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <67e1a08c$0$3831$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <vrsia0$1mccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmj3ujpg8eqannemaq74f8s9vqh2a5iooc@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:44:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f7a7945ede5aa82ddbf34ebf55d2cfdb";
	logging-data="1908112"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TpvaZsSSy1zTUstTmG2KW"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bfaLvEN1B9aZRLsSS+ieeTad/jE=
	sha1:XicATniaf9Zz2AEoUMn5/zv5/6k=
Bytes: 5085

john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:19:56 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/24/2025 11:14 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> How do you version control your PCBs these days?
>> 
>> Just like any other version control.  Part number with revision identifier.
>> For *everything* (including the tools used to do this!)
>> 
>>> I'm at the point I need to implement a more consistent schema for hardware 
>>> versions, prototype, and production boards.
>> 
>> Why would there be any difference between them?  They are all just
>> "things placed under version control".  Each deserves its own unique
>> identifier.
>> 
>> DON'T fall for the trap of wanting to assign significance to your
>> identifiers.  That's "small shop" mentality.  Avoid the "urge" to
>> pick identifiers just to make it "easy" on yourself to "recall"
>> related objects:
>> product PRD123 is built from
>> bare PCB PCB123 shot from
>> with gerbers GER123 defined from
>> schematic SCH123 populated with parts from
>> bill-of-material BOM123 and
>> firmware FRM123 tested to
>> acceptance procedure ACC123...
>> 
>> This just leads to stupidly long identifiers that will, eventually, prove
>> incapable of "encoding" the information that you want to be able to "recall"
>> unaided.
>> 
>> I've got a small board, here, in front of me.  It's a management interface
>> for a UPS.   Likely produced in tens of thousands, if not more.
>> 
>> There are two different barcode labels affixed.  At least 6 different
>> "process stamps".  Two different identifiers *in* the silkscreen.
>> Yet, obviously only partially populated -- so, we know the silkscreened
>> identifiers won't tell me what *this* unit actually is!
>> 
>> The manufacturer will have adopted some convention as to which of
>> the identifiers actually is associated with the topmost level for
>> this board -- which is likely different than the identifier
>> assigned to the *kit* in which it was packaged (which included
>> still other materials).
>> 
>> Perhaps it is not possible to truly and unambiguously identify
>> THIS item as there may be identifiers "hidden" from view (i.e.,
>> only "visible" with tools that can directly query the device)
>> 
>>> E.g. PCB-12345-R-B where 12345 is the PCB/product identifier and B is the 
>>> manufacturing revision. Would you letter designate prototypes that are 
>>> manufactured as well, or just revisions intended for public consumption?
>> 
>> Why "PCB-"?  Will that help you find the schematic for the device
>> (SCH-12345-Q-D because the schematic need not have a 1:1 correspondence
>> with the actual *board*!)  What about the BoM:  BOM-12345-L-F (because
>> the board might find use in different products each with different
>> stuffing options)?
>> 
>> Will you end up choosing a marketing name that allows you to similarly
>> associate with these "manufacturing identifiers":  Frajistat 12345?
>> Will you keep it in the stockroom immediately adjacent to the 12346
>> device (to make it easier for you to find)?  Or, will you let SOMETHING
>> BETTER EQUIPPED (than your grey matter) keep track of this association
>> FOR you?
>> 
>> (Identifier, revision).  End of story.  Whether it is a screw, resistor,
>> case, procedure, compiled binary, source code, etc.
> 
> Do you propose to assign a random number to any drawing or any part or
> any variant of any physical assembly?
> 
> Do you propose to not have revision letters or dash numbers?
> 
> 

Far from unknown. It does introduce a critical dependency on some database.
 (Windchill is a popular choice, or was a decade ago when I last looked. )

I’m with you—it’s good for stuff to be human-manageable. 

Cheers 

Phil Hobbs 
-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs  Principal Consultant  ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics  Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics