Is there any good reason to allow "deleting" layers that are part of footprints? I could see deleting routing layers (inner copper, etc) but I think we should just get rid of the idea that you can "delete" the silkscreen etc., just make it "disable" so that it can be re-enabled without any fuss.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov <kandre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought we were talking about deleting layers, not disabling them? > > I agree with Wayne, a footprint is a whole item, deleting part of it means > it is no longer valid, and thus must be removed. > > What if someone wants to remove the silkscreen layer because they don't > want it for production? I guess they can just delete the silk gerber before > sending it in. I can't think of a reason someone would want to delete a > layer on a final product, without being able to do it through gerber files. > Otherwise deleting layers would be done during initial design stage where > someone is trying to figure out how many layers to have, but if they delete > a top layer with all the SMDs on it, then well, they should be warned about > it, and if they choose to delete it, it's their fault and they will have to > undo or reimport all the items again. > > Disabling a layer should never delete existing objects. > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:15 AM, jp charras <jp.char...@wanadoo.fr> > wrote: > >> Le 21/03/2018 à 17:46, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit : >> > JP, >> > >> > Did you take a look at this patch? I know we have talked about this in >> > the past and that the fix would not be easy. Until we can define and >> > implement a complete solution, this could be a short term fix. When you >> > get a chance, please take a look at it an comment on it. >> > >> > hauptmech, >> > >> > I'm not sure about the idea of breaking a footprint (module) into layer >> > by layer pieces to match the removed layers. Footprints are typically >> > thought of as atomic objects. I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent >> > to remove the footprint if any of it's layers are removed from the layer >> > list and warn the user that removing said layer(s) would result in >> > footprints being removed. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Wayne >> > >> >> I had a look at this patch. >> >> I do not think removing something to footprints already on board is a >> good idea. >> >> I understand other board items can or must be removed when disabling a >> layer, but removing something >> to a footprint is breaking this footprint, that become no more reliable. >> >> What happens if later, a disabled layer like a silkscreen is re-enabled >> for some reason? >> Footprints carefully designed are now broken. >> >> Like Seth, I am thinking disabling a layer (disabling is not deleting) >> should not modify footprints. >> >> Currently, the Layer Setup dialog can create issues because it allows >> disabling layers that are now >> used in DRC (edge cuts, courtyard, and margin that should be used in V6 >> to create obstacles). >> Some other layers are mandatory to make a board: solder mask, solder >> paste. >> These layers should be *always* enabled. >> >> So a better fix is certainly not to delete something in footprints, but >> do not allow disabling these >> mandatory layers, and for others layers, display a warning if a disabled >> layer is in use in a footprint. >> >> For me, the major bug is in the Layer Setup dialog that allows disabling >> any layer. >> >> >> > On 3/20/2018 4:19 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: >> >> 2018-03-20 0:19 GMT+02:00 Seth Hillbrand <seth.hillbr...@gmail.com >> >> <mailto:seth.hillbr...@gmail.com>>: >> >> >> >> >> >> As it is, the patch resolves an issue and creates another. >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually Seth is wrong here. It doesn't create another problem. Namely, >> >> as the code without the patch works now, it leaves the board uneditable >> >> anyways, and without a warning. Just test with a footprint which has >> >> nothing but ref and value and one paste-only pad. It doesn't matter >> >> whether the pad is left there or removed after the layer is deleted. >> The >> >> footprint can't be selected or edited. >> >> >> >> I would still go with this patch, just add a sentence to the warning if >> >> pads are deleted. "Additionally this may lead to footprints which >> cannot >> >> be edited or deleted" or something like that. >> >> -- >> Jean-Pierre CHARRAS >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Remember The Past, Live The Present, Change The Future > Those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the > future [JFK] > > kandre...@gmail.com > Live Long and Prosper, > Andrey > > _______________________________________________ > 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
