kicad-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Bug 1918746: EESCHEMA File Format Versions
Dick Hollenbeck <dick@...>
Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:14:43 -0500
Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (X11/20080227)
Tim Hanson wrote:
yep, I was the author of that change. While I cannot change old
versions of eeschema that are floating around the web, I guess we
could export eeschema version 1 -- e.g. without hierarchal sheets and
global/hierarchal labels & alternate references. It would probably
only work for single sheets, but hopefully that would be enough for
backwards compatibility. How about if eeschema saved in the old
format unless the new format was required (and asked the user about
this)? Best of both worlds?
On a non bug-related note, now that we have hierarchal / duplicated
sheets, we need similar functionality with PCBnew. I have one design
with 8 identical channels, each of which has about 50 discrete
components. I'm not at all thrilled about placing these components or
wiring them up.
1. write an external tool to duplicate module placements and tracks
based on one template channel. the tool reads in a .brd, and writes
out a .brd
2. make pcbnew allow boards to include other boards, ala eeschema.
I'm thinking that people will object to this since it requires a
restructuring of pcbnew, which is already a very large program.
3. make pcbnew move multiple equivalent objects (different references
from the same schematic) based on spacing parameter, and draw multiple
tracks when drawing a track connected to one schematic's nets.
4. have two different schematic - pcb projects, and write a tool to
pannelize the gerber files. with this, you lose out on DRC, and all
the channels must be exactly the same.
A) Pigs need to fly, they could travel faster.
B) I need copper areas that are part of the ratsnest and drc logic.
C) Folks want undo redo.
D) Folks want a new file format and a python binding.
All four of these are 2000 times more important than this improvement, IMO.
Please think about option 1, exclusively, if it ever reaches the top of
your priority list with sufficient time, but I would would wait until
after D) otherwise it will be obsolete soon after you write it.