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]" 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: References: <20160118093035 DOT 7ecd3b5ee5f5d3ae1e8dc91a AT gmail DOT com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 Precedence: bulk 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.