kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Russell Oliver <roliver8143@xxxxxxxxx>]

Forgive my ignorance but why would storing the clearance for each track
segment (if required to by design intent) conflict with a sophisticated
design rule management system?
As a general approach shouldn't KiCad allow freedom of design when the
intention of the designer is clear?

Russell




On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:30 PM Tomasz Wlostowski <tomasz.wlostowski@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On 07/03/18 11:02, hauptmech wrote:
> > I have a patch for treating track clearance the same as track width. The
> > user can already specify a track width that is an exception to the
> > netclass width, and now do the same for clearance. (
> > https://youtu.be/05vfAvYwDio )
>
> Hi hauptmech,
>
> I'm sorry but IMHO we can't accept your patch:
> - it changes the file format while we are already in feature freeze.
> This is a way too big change to accept for the V5.
> - we are planning to overhaul the clearance/design rules system in V6.
> Storing the clearance *DIRECTLY* for each track segment/via will
> conflict with any more sophisticated design rule management system.
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>