kicad-developers team mailing list archive
-
kicad-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #34783
Re: [PATCH] - File format shim for clearance data
-
To:
Russell Oliver <roliver8143@xxxxxxxxx>
-
From:
Tomasz Wlostowski <tomasz.wlostowski@xxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:44:53 +0100
-
Authentication-results:
spf=pass (sender IP is 188.184.36.50) smtp.mailfrom=cern.ch; lists.launchpad.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.launchpad.net; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=cern.ch;
-
Cc:
KiCad Developers <kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
In-reply-to:
<CAEKH5oUuurK=VnvBabKYGuWECwWqc2+XuB_-4d6iNq8Hm=Ss1w@mail.gmail.com>
-
Spamdiagnosticmetadata:
NSPM
-
Spamdiagnosticoutput:
1:99
-
User-agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
On 07/03/18 12:10, Russell Oliver wrote:
> 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?
For example: what would happen to the clearance of the segment/via if it
has been modified by the P&S shove? What clearance should be taken if
new segments are generated by the P&S optimizer from multiple original
segments with different manually-set clearances?
I'm not totally opposed to hauptmech's change, I just think it's too
early to merge it. We should discuss such ideas before writing code. My
goal for V6 DRC is to be able to define clearance rules for at least:
- per-net & per-netclass
- per-layer
- user-defined board areas.
The latter two features IMHO will be more powerful than manually
overriding each segments' or via's clearance.
Tom
Follow ups
References