X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:04:09 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Blind/buried vias, padstack
In-Reply-To:	<20160118093035.7ecd3b5ee5f5d3ae1e8dc91a@gmail.com>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1601181056200.9035@igor2priv>
References:	<20160118093035 DOT 7ecd3b5ee5f5d3ae1e8dc91a AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

> If there is a quick fix for blind/buried vias without change of file format I think this is a good solution right now.
>
> I however think it is good with a discussion of a more general mechanism for via/pin/pad and in particular possibility with a library of these for different package types. Even though there are cases then a more general mechanism is needed I think old style maybe with some modifications could be kept as a short hand notation. A library of vis/pin/pad is especially useful then adding new footprints and then small adjustments are needed.

If there's enough developer resource available for PCB, a full redesign of 
the related internal structures is a good idea IMO. Looking at the 
history of such big refactorings, I am a bit pessimist about whether PCB 
really has enough resources to finish such an effort in reasonable time. 
Let's hope I'm wrong.

As of pcb-rnd: I don't have the resources for a biggish rewrite and want 
to try to keep file format and code merge compatibility for now. For these 
reasons I am thinking in expanding the current model instead of a 
redesign. But the real blocker is whether the feature would be used by 
anyone, I don't want to write code for /dev/null.

- Raw text -