Pragmatism is the reason I've asked JP to create this patch. Rather
than create a lot of extra work for our librarians and creating a file
format change that doesn't really buy us much, I reconsidered my
original decision. I doubt many users are currently using "aperture
pads" so I think the risk is low and the longer we push this off, the
greater the problem will be. I already have an announcement prepared
for the website once this makes its way into the repo. I will also post
a link to the announcement on the user forum and update the Pcbnew
documentation.
On 05/02/2018 05:11 PM, Jeff Young wrote:
Personally I think this is one of those times to be pragmatic. Yes, the
patch changes the interpretation of existing files (which in principle
is a bad thing), but we’re willing to live with it in this case.
I don’t have much of an opinion on the exact algorithm we should use.
Cheers,
Jeff.
On 2 May 2018, at 21:57, Eeli Kaikkonen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The patch seems to work as intented.
But I thought Wayne said this won't be done because it would alter
interpretation of old existing board and footprints files. On the
other hand it's hard to imagine someone having designed footprints and
boards using and taking into consideration the global values, without
noticing and using this trick of using a very small value instead.
If this kind of change is made I think a more radical change would be
more logical. Why use these clearances for non-copper pads at all? I
just can't see why I or anyone would design a pad with certain
dimensions and then alter those dimensions on purpose with those
clearance values. For example I want a paste pad of 1.5x1.5mm. Why
would I make it 2.0x2.0 and then calculate values for paste clearance
and % to make it smaller? Being able to define the mask clearance for
a paste-only pad makes even less sense. Therefore they could be
ignored completely and the corresponding GUI items could be disabled
or hidden. Instead of one explanation text which would cover all cases
with all pads it could be conditional: in the copper pads it would
read as it is, in the non-copper pads it would be "Clearance values
are not used for non-copper pads" or something as simple.
Eeli Kaikkonen
2018-05-02 15:58 GMT+03:00 jp charras <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi All,
Dick Hollenbeck ( who wrote a lot of code for Kicad) proposed to
use global mask margin values only
for pad at least on a copper layer.
(I am thinking this is also what was expected by some of guys)
Attached, a patch to use global mask settings only for pads on
copper layers to build the mask shape
(solder or paste layer) of the pad.
Therefore pads *only* on a solder or paste layer are no longer
affected by global settings.
(The drawback is a change in the behavior of previous Pcbnew
versions, but it should not impact a
lot of old boards or old footprints)
The change in code is very small.
I added a info message in dialogs, in the pad clearance setup
sub-window to explain the purpose of
this setting.
This is perhaps the main problem, because a message in a dialog
must be short, and yet understandable...
The info messages are not perfect.
Please, test it.
--
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
