Le 16/02/2016 07:44, Mikael Arguedas a écrit :
> Hi Miguel,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I can now appreciate the difference. In this
> case it's indeed more useful to have a minimum size that won't be 0.
>
> Actually I thought these were 1nm steps. My intent was to have every
> courtyard si
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Cirilo Bernardo
> wrote:
>
> There is really no point in writing Gerber files in inches; it would take
> some extraordinarily bad software to not work with metric units. From a
> technical viewpoint using mm will require far fewer digits to represent a
> poin
Hi Miguel,
Thanks for the clarification. I can now appreciate the difference. In this
case it's indeed more useful to have a minimum size that won't be 0.
Actually I thought these were 1nm steps. My intent was to have every
courtyard size to be rounded to 0.1mm and thus land on a 0.05mm grid as
s
There is really no point in writing Gerber files in inches; it would take
some extraordinarily bad software to not work with metric units. From a
technical viewpoint using mm will require far fewer digits to represent a
point to a given tolerance even if the design is on an imperial grid. I
think
This is 4.0.1 on Mac OS X 10.11.
I submitted Gerbers and drill files to Seeed Studio for fab last night, and
they got bounced for some reason which got lost in translation. I think they
thought that the two separate sets of Gerbers submitted on the same order were
for the same job. But anyway.
I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes with the github libraries
since the contents of the libraries can change even if you don't update
your fp-lib-table. Shipping the updated fp-lib-table wont make any
difference unless the user chooses to copy the new one. The schematic
libraries howev
Hi,
On 15.02.2016 19:09, Bernhard Stegmaier wrote:
> sorry for hijacking…
> I guess you had your changes in a git branch?
Yes.
> What’s the easiest way to get the git branch to lp?
If you have git-remote-bzr installed, you can use a prefix of "bzr::" as
a git remote, e.g.
git clone bzr::lp:k
The pretty repository with the old name still exists for as long as needed.
My question is about having lib differences between bugfix releases. In
this case, the fp-lib-table will be updated so that 4.0.3 will use the
renamed lib whereas 4.0.2 uses the old lib.
Regards,
Carl
On Mon, Feb 15, 201
Hi,
> On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:01, Simon Richter wrote:
>
>>> The "v2" set replaces the incorrectly split [2/19] patch. I can prepare
>>> a branch if that is easier.
>
>> If you don't mind. That would make my life a lot easier than having to
>> apply all of these patches individually.
>
> Sent a
Hi Wayne,
On 15.02.2016 18:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> The "v2" set replaces the incorrectly split [2/19] patch. I can prepare
>> a branch if that is easier.
> If you don't mind. That would make my life a lot easier than having to
> apply all of these patches individually.
Sent as lp:~sjr/ki
On 2/15/2016 12:16 PM, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> Am 15.02.2016 um 17:17 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
>
>> Have you tested this patch on MSYS and/or MSYS2?
>
> Yes, I've tested that with MSYS2. The difference to the previous patch
> are the parts that went to the cmake developers list:
>
Hi Wayne,
Am 15.02.2016 um 17:17 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
> Have you tested this patch on MSYS and/or MSYS2?
Yes, I've tested that with MSYS2. The difference to the previous patch
are the parts that went to the cmake developers list:
- fix the case where multiple CXXFLAGS that are neither -D n
Simon,
Have you tested this patch on MSYS and/or MSYS2? The last time we went
through this exercise, FindwxWidgets.cmake was broken on msys builds. I
would rather avoid going through that again. Also, do I apply the first
9 patches than the 3 patches from this set and should I apply them all
an
Hello all,
Let me share with you some of the recent (by me and Cirilo) progresses related
with the 3D-Viewer refactoring.
I believe at this moment we have almost every major aspects of the current
KiCad 3D-Viewer and surpasses it in some other aspects and features.
I am myself very surprised wit
Hi Mikael,
Sorry, my comment is probably irrelevant,
sizex = (int(sizex/10)+1)*10
vs
sizex = (int((sizex+(10-1))/10))*10
for sizex of 0, on the first one you end up with 10
while on the second you end up with 0
and for sizex of 1, both render the same result.
15 matches
Mail list logo
