X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=4PrLy+gbZRjfe8lFI4hGKBaZiPAtg3fm0W+35/bW+BI=;
        b=kB5vb5tR5x8EKa7olfQ0IGiWkukSZ6pZ5IBbeyouawq82XI8ahQ4S49J6IUks+Zz9D
         5bIi2Ycn+47d8BCmZBo9hwsGxJPwnpZ7TjbtFVYV+os09kLRTNtWE8l+wxU1Mcv5IPKo
         AX5vWvRe0BO3LHrpVDJuY4bZ2xPZ40oKmRl8lvwUbhWAQTUK+GhyJfoZDnYIAGlst/ZM
         ZhTn/cqUQEIrP9UluW1ndk8uvYC3Aa1XbDh8xtU/aklX3Xc7JpuK0hylxVUvdvdMh24W
         T06kvrXPGo9Dgep5Tj3XLb2CP2dDMDT5r60AYCggeNMRJvJsGnLeIIv5d3TYqEHy97Lq
         NUew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.214.70 with SMTP id ny6mr8077703wic.20.1441904753621;
 Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150910131034.32423.qmail@stuge.se>
References: <55F1640D DOT 5080703 AT envinsci DOT co DOT uk>
	<55F17B4F DOT 30207 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<20150910131034 DOT 32423 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:05:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c_QpHmCw_uUoQ_yEfM_PG1-2Hsj=qx6MOoXeNjHO9o25g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] zero soldermask clearance not caught by DRC
From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> > Are shorted nets detectable by some other means?
>>
>> Shorts are detected when optimizing rats.
>
> That's, case in point, not very intuitive.
>
>
>> DRC does just DRC, not connection checking.
>
> It could and should check connections too.
>
> I often find myself running DRC and optimizing rats (only to check
> connections!) together, it makes perfect sense to make connection
> checking part of DRC, either in addition to, or maybe instead of,
> rat optimization.

I vote for both places.  One expects DRC to catch it, so it should be
there.  Rat optimization catches it now, so its a free good feature: it
puts detection of the bug closest to point where it's created which
generally makes bug cheaper to fix.

Britton