Via-in-pad sites sit at ball centres under the mutual centre-reservation
contract, not through _via_site_conflict, so a board declaring
min_hole_to_hole 0.9 still gets 0.6 mm gaps (measured on ulx3s U1). This is
arguably a refuse-to-build condition rather than a spacing choice — flagging
it needs a policy decision (skip via-in-pad? warn? fail?), which is why it is
an issue and not a patch. The escape-path fix (#616) already handles every
non-via-in-pad site.
Via-in-pad sites sit at ball centres under the mutual centre-reservation
contract, not through
_via_site_conflict, so a board declaringmin_hole_to_hole0.9 still gets 0.6 mm gaps (measured on ulx3s U1). This isarguably a refuse-to-build condition rather than a spacing choice — flagging
it needs a policy decision (skip via-in-pad? warn? fail?), which is why it is
an issue and not a patch. The escape-path fix (#616) already handles every
non-via-in-pad site.