kicad-developers team mailing list archive
-
kicad-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #27545
Fwd: Via Stitching
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heikki Pulkkinen <hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] Via Stitching
To: Kristoffer Ödmark <kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx>
Hello Kristoffer,
Thanks about that trailing whitespaces tip.
There must be copper in that zone in that point in that layer where you
want to put that via. You can put via inside that zone by moving it or
duplicate, but connection is made only if there is at least one pad
connection any zone that via hits.
Cheers
Heikki
And video: https://youtu.be/plONf7P8jKQ
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Kristoffer Ödmark <
kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello heikki!
>
> use:
> git add viastitching.{cpp,h}
> git commit --amend
>
> that will put the viastitching files in the same commit and then you can
> create a patch for that. Also please remove trailing whitespaces from your
> patch. You can do it manually if you cannot get your editor to fix it:
> https://kparal.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/git-tip-of-the-day-c
> heck-for-whitespace-errors-in-diff/
>
> Also I tried the patch and it is very nice indeed. I would like to see it
> merged. I did however notice that it was not working for all zones.
>
> For example it did not manage a zone within a zone. I made a video showing
> what I mean:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u67tyF_qqiU&feature=youtu.be
>
> Thank you very much for putting work into this!
>
> - Kristoffer
>
>
> On 2017-02-04 11:19, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>
>> Why didn't you add the viastitching.{cpp,h} to the patch and attached
>> them seperately?
>>
>> 2017-02-03 17:33 GMT+01:00 Heikki Pulkkinen <hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> Hello Kristoffer,
>>>
>>> I just made a new patch, with some modifications. I changed that GAL
>>> canvas
>>> adding algorithm, so that it does not involve PNS any longer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Heikki
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Kristoffer Ödmark
>>> <kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to try the patch, but I cannot apply it to current master
>>>> branch,
>>>> from which commit should I apply it or could you update the patch?
>>>>
>>>> - Kristoffer
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-01-25 09:40, Heikki Pulkkinen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion via stitching and its connectivity algorithm is ready to
>>>>> use and it is working fine. Of course there might be some bugs. One of
>>>>> the goal ideas is that It uses as much as possible current tested and
>>>>> well working code, so do not have to test all again. I am going to
>>>>> change that GAL canvas adding algorithm, so that it do not involve PNS.
>>>>> But not soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to make new all connecting connectivity algorithm, it is
>>>>> fine for me. I think that it would take longer than month to get all
>>>>> ready, if you are going to make rework all, and still have same
>>>>> usability and workability as user point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> If You, or someone, are sill interested in my suggestion there is
>>>>> latest
>>>>> full patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Heikki
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Maciej Sumiński
>>>>> <maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx <mailto:maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/18/2017 02:35 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>>>> > On 1/17/2017 12:14 PM, Heikki Pulkkinen wrote:
>>>>> >> Hi Wayne,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> OK, I explain inside your text.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Wayne Stambaugh
>>>>> <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Heikki,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> What is the purpose of the "stitch" token added to the file
>>>>> format?
>>>>> >> Vias already have a netcode field so adding "stitch" to the
>>>>> file format
>>>>> >> seems to serve no purpose.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It is there because there is some cases when that "stitch" via
>>>>> lose it's
>>>>> >> netcode when opening board. If via was stitch when saved, then
>>>>> it's
>>>>> >> stitch code would be saved netcode and board is what it was when
>>>>> saved.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is being addressed by work currently being done on the
>>>>> connection
>>>>> > algorithm (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this). Changing
>>>>> the
>>>>> > file format to fix a design flaw in the connection algorithm
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> > make sense other than it's an easier fix.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I would prefer that you avoid the term stitching. Vias
>>>>> could
>>>>> just as
>>>>> >> easily be thermal vias. I don't think the generic term via
>>>>> is going to
>>>>> >> confuse anyone. I would think most users placing vias for
>>>>> purposes
>>>>> >> other than trace routing understand the purpose of the vias.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I agree that. That is better term of them. I change code so that
>>>>> I use
>>>>> >> thermal instead stitch and user point of view these are just
>>>>> vias.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Just use the term "via". The designer knows the purpose of the
>>>>> via.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> You are still automatically assigning via netcodes based on
>>>>> placement.
>>>>> >> We agreed (at least I thought we did) that this assumption
>>>>> is
>>>>> dangerous
>>>>> >> and that the user should be selecting the net assignment.
>>>>> I'm OK if you
>>>>> >> suggest to the user the best netcode based on the via
>>>>> placement position
>>>>> >> but under no circumstance should the code be selecting the
>>>>> via netcode.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It seems, that code is automatically assigning netcode, but it
>>>>> is
>>>>> users
>>>>> >> decide. When user selects connected layer pair and what layer is
>>>>> main
>>>>> >> connected layer, not even have to select that last one, user
>>>>> selects
>>>>> >> netcode in that main connected layer copper pours netcode. And
>>>>> you see
>>>>> >> instantly what you get. if there is no pour in main selected
>>>>> layer
>>>>> in
>>>>> >> that point, then you don't get any via. Simple.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> As a user I know what copper pours I want to connect together.
>>>>> And
>>>>> I
>>>>> >> know what these pours netcodes are. It is faster just pressing a
>>>>> button,
>>>>> >> than selecting every time netcode where connect. And if there is
>>>>> no pour
>>>>> >> to connect in that netcode you selected, it is just one
>>>>> unconnected via
>>>>> >> or it may have connected.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I think that there is no need to make any selection box of that.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This only true when there is only one possible connection between
>>>>> a via
>>>>> > and plane or trace. In this case, it would be acceptable to use
>>>>> net of
>>>>> > the only connection to the via. However, when there is more than
>>>>> one
>>>>> > net connect, how do you decide which net to use? You are going
>>>>> to
>>>>> end
>>>>> > up with unexpected behavior if you make assumptions in this case.
>>>>> You
>>>>> > wouldn't necessarily need to display a list of all of the nets,
>>>>> only the
>>>>> > nets that bisect the via.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> There is some work currently going on with to fix some of
>>>>> the
>>>>> issues
>>>>> >> with the connection algorithm that may conflict with your
>>>>> code. Please
>>>>> >> make sure you check with the folks that are working on this
>>>>> code. If
>>>>> >> you are working on the connection algorithm, please let
>>>>> Heikki know so
>>>>> >> that we can avoid any conflicts.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> OK, wait that.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Would whoever is working on that let Heikki know the current
>>>>> status.
>>>>> > Perhaps some collaboration would be helpful to move this along.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Heikki,
>>>>>
>>>>> We all want to have via stitching, and it is planned for v5. One
>>>>> important thing is we need to rework the connectivity algorithm.
>>>>> While
>>>>> doing so, we want to take the opportunity to add the code necessary
>>>>> to
>>>>> handle stitching vias. Tom is working on this, I am going to join
>>>>> soon,
>>>>> and we expect to finish it in a month or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Wayne has already mentioned, we would rather avoid making
>>>>> stitching
>>>>> vias a special type (m_stitch, m_zones fields, "stitch" tag in the
>>>>> file
>>>>> format).
>>>>>
>>>>> Once the connectivity algorithm is in place, the via placement tool
>>>>> is
>>>>> trivial: simply add a via at a specific place and let the
>>>>> connectivity
>>>>> algorithm handle the details. No need to involve the PNS router
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the code for displaying the via net names would be a good
>>>>> addition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Orson
>>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Please configure your editor so that it doesn't leave
>>>>> trailing white
>>>>> >> space all over the source files. Your patch contains a
>>>>> bunch
>>>>> of it
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Wayne
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Who can tell me what to do with those trailing white spaces. I
>>>>> use KDevelop.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Does KDevelop support macros? If so, someone probably has
>>>>> written
>>>>> a
>>>>> > macro to delete trailing white space. If not, you can always
>>>>> write your
>>>>> > own. The more painful option is to configure the editor to show
>>>>> white
>>>>> > space (most editors have this option) and clean it up manually
>>>>> before
>>>>> > you generate your patches.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Cheers
>>>>> >> Heikki
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 1/9/2017 11:33 AM, Heikki Pulkkinen wrote:
>>>>> >> > Hi
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > I add netnames to stitch vias.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Regards
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Heikki
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > https://youtu.be/7FgmY8Uzgbg
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Heikki Pulkkinen
>>>>> <hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Hi Wayne and others,
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > It has been for a while. I was out of my faster
>>>>> computer again.
>>>>> >> > Mother board has to been put oven again.
>>>>> >> > I think, that my suggestion of via stitching is now
>>>>> quite robust.
>>>>> >> > But it has to be tested more and some other than me.
>>>>> Main idea has
>>>>> >> > developed so, that VIA class has new property of that
>>>>> stitching and
>>>>> >> > it has to be saved on [.kicad_pcb] file too. Filling
>>>>> pours is part
>>>>> >> > of that how to connect vias and pours, so it has to be
>>>>> done twice.
>>>>> >> > And there is some new additions in shape_poly_set.cpp
>>>>> and drc.cpp.
>>>>> >> > They do not disturb other program. And of course I
>>>>> have
>>>>> to add some
>>>>> >> > little things in gal canvas too. I did not make any
>>>>> class of
>>>>> >> > stitching, just put them in own namespace, because
>>>>> there is no data
>>>>> >> > to hide. All stitch data is in VIA class. So, hope
>>>>> that
>>>>> my idea is
>>>>> >> > usable and it is worth of improve.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Regards
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Heikki
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Wayne Stambaugh
>>>>> >> > <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Hi Heikki,
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > I appreciate any effort that you can make on this.
>>>>> I really
>>>>> >> > would like
>>>>> >> > to get the via stitching code in before the stable
>>>>> version
>>>>> >> 5 pre
>>>>> >> > release
>>>>> >> > which I'm hoping to do at the beginning of 2017
>>>>> before FOSDEM.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Cheers,
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Wayne
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On 11/12/2016 12:35 PM, Heikki Pulkkinen wrote:
>>>>> >> > > Hi Wayne,
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > OK, I understand that. I look what can I do,
>>>>> but
>>>>> I do
>>>>> >> not promise
>>>>> >> > > anything, very soon anyway. I am not familiar
>>>>> with gal
>>>>> >> canvas. I done
>>>>> >> > > this to legacy canvas, because I know how it
>>>>> works. Now
>>>>> >> stitching works
>>>>> >> > > in my tests quite well "of course". And it is
>>>>> working my
>>>>> >> needs.
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > I try via stitching on gal, and it is partly
>>>>> working.
>>>>> >> Stitch via
>>>>> >> > > placing and chain connection does not seems to
>>>>> work. But
>>>>> >> converting old
>>>>> >> > > designs with pad->track->via... chain removing
>>>>> pad
>>>>> >> connection from chain
>>>>> >> > > converts vias as stitch vias when run track via
>>>>> cleanup.
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > I do some code cleaning and send it to look at
>>>>> as
>>>>> soon
>>>>> >> as possible. You
>>>>> >> > > can use it or not, It is fine for me.
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > Regards
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > Heikki
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Wayne
>>>>> Stambaugh
>>>>> >> <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > Hi Heikki,
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > I spoke to Tom this morning about your via
>>>>> stitching work. He mentioned
>>>>> >> > > that your via stitching work should be
>>>>> developed for the gal canvas.
>>>>> >> > > I'm not sure you are aware but I put a
>>>>> moratorium on adding new features
>>>>> >> > > to the legacy canvas earlier in the year.
>>>>> This is because the legacy
>>>>> >> > > canvas is going to be removed at some time
>>>>> in
>>>>> the not too distant
>>>>> >> > > future. I should have mentioned this sooner
>>>>> but it really needs to be
>>>>> >> > > done this way to be accepted into kicad. I
>>>>> realize this is going to be
>>>>> >> > > more work for you but it would have to be
>>>>> done anyway. If you support
>>>>> >> > > both canvases, I'm fine with that but the
>>>>> gal
>>>>> canvas must be supported
>>>>> >> > > for any new feature added to pcbnew.
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > Thanks,
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > Wayne
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > On 11/8/2016 3:35 AM, Heikki Pulkkinen
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> > > > Hi
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Now via->pour chain is recovering.
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Heikki
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > https://youtu.be/HuViOfQmcrU
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Heikki
>>>>> Pulkkinen <hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Hi,
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > I made some new features. Now it is
>>>>> possible chaining copper pours
>>>>> >> > > > with Vias. This video show, how it
>>>>> works at the moment.
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Heikki
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > https://youtu.be/91tT626XnbM
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 7:58 AM,
>>>>> Heikki
>>>>> Pulkkinen
>>>>> >> > > > <hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Hi Wayne,
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > I think that there is two places
>>>>> when user is "wrong" wit
>>>>> >> > > > his/her will. One is when there
>>>>> are
>>>>> not at least two pours to
>>>>> >> > > > connect with and second is that
>>>>> there must be at least one pad
>>>>> >> > > > in connection chain. If antennas
>>>>> are user will, it is better
>>>>> >> > > > create component. I might be
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>> but that is how I think it.
>>>>> >> > > > I did some experimental
>>>>> development
>>>>> in my code which now keeps
>>>>> >> > > > vias netcodes Steven's ideas way,
>>>>> and take care of that there is
>>>>> >> > > > connected pad. These two videos
>>>>> show how that works. I try more
>>>>> >> > > > other things when I am back home
>>>>> again.
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Regards
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > Heikki
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > https://youtu.be/wXdVl4WXCJ8
>>>>> >> > > > https://youtu.be/5qe-XnVJwXs
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > 27.10.2016 1.47 "Wayne Stambaugh"
>>>>> <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>> kirjoitti:
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > I'm just not comfortable with
>>>>> the
>>>>> >> connection
>>>>> >> > algorithm
>>>>> >> > > > reassigning via
>>>>> >> > > > net codes to a zone's net code
>>>>> based
>>>>> >> on the
>>>>> >> > zone/via
>>>>> >> > > > intersection. This
>>>>> >> > > > puts the responsibility of the
>>>>> >> connection on
>>>>> >> > the project
>>>>> >> > > > rather than the
>>>>> >> > > > user. I'm OK if we suggest a
>>>>> net when the
>>>>> >> > user is placing
>>>>> >> > > > vias but the
>>>>> >> > > > user has the final say and the
>>>>> via net
>>>>> >> code
>>>>> >> > does not
>>>>> >> > > change
>>>>> >> > > > unless the
>>>>> >> > > > user explicitly changes it. I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> >> now how
>>>>> >> > to make
>>>>> >> > > it any
>>>>> >> > > > clearer than
>>>>> >> > > > that. Someone would have to
>>>>> make a really
>>>>> >> > impressive
>>>>> >> > > > argument (read
>>>>> >> > > > doctoral thesis) as to why we
>>>>> should allow
>>>>> >> > kicad to
>>>>> >> > > determine
>>>>> >> > > > connectivity rather than the
>>>>> user.
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > > On 10/25/2016 1:54 AM, Heikki
>>>>> >> Pulkkinen wrote:
>>>>> >> > > > > Thanks Wayne to look at this
>>>>> and Steven
>>>>> >> > for asking about
>>>>> >> > > > connection logic.
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > It is good to try explain
>>>>> what did you
>>>>> >> > thought last
>>>>> >> > > > summer. It clearer
>>>>> >> > > > > things.
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > There are main rule which
>>>>> connects
>>>>> >> top and
>>>>> >> > bottom layer
>>>>> >> > > > and second rule
>>>>> >> > > > > connecting inner layers. And
>>>>> now I think
>>>>> >> > that main
>>>>> >> > > rule is
>>>>> >> > > > useless,
>>>>> >> > > > > because second rule do all
>>>>> this
>>>>> >> connecting
>>>>> >> > via to first
>>>>> >> > > > two zones with
>>>>> >> > > > > same netcode. This works
>>>>> well
>>>>> as far as
>>>>> >> > zones are up the
>>>>> >> > > > date. And that
>>>>> >> > > > > is not always true. For
>>>>> example in
>>>>> >> DRC, if
>>>>> >> > you forgot to
>>>>> >> > > > refill zones
>>>>> >> > > > > before running DRC, vias can
>>>>> >> corrupted to
>>>>> >> > wrong net.
>>>>> >> > > Thats
>>>>> >> > > > why running
>>>>> >> > > > > first refilling zones in
>>>>> DRC,
>>>>> keeps
>>>>> >> vias right
>>>>> >> > > connected.
>>>>> >> > > > > I found two another, and
>>>>> there might be
>>>>> >> > more, situation
>>>>> >> > > > when user can
>>>>> >> > > > > accidentally damage
>>>>> connection. Cleanup
>>>>> >> > and saving a
>>>>> >> > > > board. Saving is
>>>>> >> > > > > not that broblem, but
>>>>> opening
>>>>> is. But I
>>>>> >> > have solution of
>>>>> >> > > > them. Just
>>>>> >> > > > > running zone filling
>>>>> algorithm before
>>>>> >> > running ratsnest
>>>>> >> > > > algorithm.
>>>>> >> > > > > But usually, when working
>>>>> with via
>>>>> >> > stitching, user keeps
>>>>> >> > > > zones up to
>>>>> >> > > > > date running refill to see
>>>>> what he
>>>>> >> or she
>>>>> >> > have done. I
>>>>> >> > > > know there is
>>>>> >> > > > > always better solutions, but
>>>>> I can
>>>>> >> manage
>>>>> >> > this at the
>>>>> >> > > > moment before
>>>>> >> > > > > there are official one. I
>>>>> know, if
>>>>> >> > algorithm is
>>>>> >> > > different
>>>>> >> > > > than mine it
>>>>> >> > > > > does not ruin my designs.
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > Cheers
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > Heikki
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > 24.10.2016 23.58 "Wayne
>>>>> Stambaugh"
>>>>> >> > > <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> > > > > <mailto:
>>>>> stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>>> kirjoitti:
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > I finally had a chance
>>>>> to
>>>>> look
>>>>> >> at this
>>>>> >> > patch and I
>>>>> >> > > > have similar
>>>>> >> > > > > concerns. I thought I
>>>>> was pretty
>>>>> >> > clear about *not*
>>>>> >> > > > being comfortable
>>>>> >> > > > > with making assumptions
>>>>> about
>>>>> >> via zone
>>>>> >> > > connections and
>>>>> >> > > > always using the
>>>>> >> > > > > assigned net code. I'm
>>>>> a
>>>>> bit
>>>>> >> > concerned with the
>>>>> >> > > > connection testing and
>>>>> >> > > > > it's decision to change
>>>>> a
>>>>> via's
>>>>> >> net code
>>>>> >> > > depending on
>>>>> >> > > > which zone(s) that
>>>>> >> > > > > it intersects. I see
>>>>> this as an
>>>>> >> > unacceptable
>>>>> >> > > risk for
>>>>> >> > > > kicad to assume.
>>>>> >> > > > > I would rather put the
>>>>> >> responsibility
>>>>> >> > in hands
>>>>> >> > > of the
>>>>> >> > > > user and just have
>>>>> >> > > > > kicad complain when
>>>>> there
>>>>> is a
>>>>> >> drc issue.
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > Please configure your
>>>>> editor to
>>>>> >> clean
>>>>> >> > up trailing
>>>>> >> > > > white space and fix
>>>>> >> > > > > the other coding policy
>>>>> errors.
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > Cheers,
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > Wayne
>>>>> >> > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > On 10/23/2016 10:44 PM,
>>>>> >> Strontium wrote:
>>>>> >> > > > > > Hello Heikki,
>>>>> >> > > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > > Can you explain the
>>>>> logic you are
>>>>> >> > using to
>>>>> >> > > determine
>>>>> >> > > > the net of
>>>>> >> > > > > the vias
>>>>> >> > > > > > during DRC reconnect?
>>>>> It
>>>>> >> looks like
>>>>> >> > you are only
>>>>> >> > > > considering the top
>>>>> >> > > > > > and bottom layer, but
>>>>> >> stitching vias
>>>>> >> > may be
>>>>> >> > > > stitching internal layers?
>>>>> >> > > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > > Steven
>>>>> >> > > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > >
>>>>> >> > > > > > On 23/10/16 21:48,
>>>>> Heikki
>>>>> >> Pulkkinen
>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Hi Wayne and all,
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> About that my
>>>>> suggestion of Via
>>>>> >> > Stitching. I do
>>>>> >> > > > some tests and found
>>>>> >> > > > > >> that if DRC first
>>>>> fill
>>>>> zones and
>>>>> >> > then do tests it
>>>>> >> > > > does not break
>>>>> >> > > > > >> anything. if you
>>>>> forgot
>>>>> to
>>>>> >> Fill or
>>>>> >> > Refill zoenes
>>>>> >> > > > before running DRC.
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Regards
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Heikki
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016
>>>>> at 6:41 PM,
>>>>> >> > Heikki Pulkkinen
>>>>> >> > > > > <hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hei6mail@xxxxxxxxx>>>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Hi Wayne,
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> If you try this,
>>>>> I
>>>>> send the
>>>>> >> > last full
>>>>> >> > > patch of
>>>>> >> > > > that Via
>>>>> >> > > > > Stitching.
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Do not care other
>>>>> patches in
>>>>> >> > mailing
>>>>> >> > > list, they
>>>>> >> > > > are more or less
>>>>> >> > > > > >> incomplete.
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Regards
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> Heikki
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> >> > > > > >> On Tue, Oct 18,
>>>>> 2016 at 3:22
>>>>> >> > PM, Wayne
>>>>> >> > > Stambaugh
>>>>> >> > > > > >>
>>>>> <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>
>>>>> >> > > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> >> > <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> >> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>
Follow ups
References
-
Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2016-09-24
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2016-11-07
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2016-11-08
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2016-12-21
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2017-01-09
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-01-16
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2017-01-17
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-01-18
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Maciej Sumiński, 2017-01-19
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2017-01-25
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-02-03
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Heikki Pulkkinen, 2017-02-03
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Nick Østergaard, 2017-02-04
-
Re: Via Stitching
From: Kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-02-04
