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? As a general approach shouldn't KiCad allow freedom of design when the intention of the designer is clear?
Russell On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:30 PM Tomasz Wlostowski <tomasz.wlostow...@cern.ch> wrote: > On 07/03/18 11:02, hauptmech wrote: > > I have a patch for treating track clearance the same as track width. The > > user can already specify a track width that is an exception to the > > netclass width, and now do the same for clearance. ( > > https://youtu.be/05vfAvYwDio ) > > Hi hauptmech, > > I'm sorry but IMHO we can't accept your patch: > - it changes the file format while we are already in feature freeze. > This is a way too big change to accept for the V5. > - we are planning to overhaul the clearance/design rules system in V6. > Storing the clearance *DIRECTLY* for each track segment/via will > conflict with any more sophisticated design rule management system. > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp