delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/18/05:01:36

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 -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019