| |
Am I the only one disappointed by the fact that we haven't had a new
infusion of parts in over 6 month? Maybe I missed some earlier discussion,
but what gives?
Orion
|
|
| |
"Orion" <pobursky@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GC97Iy.5L2@lugnet.com...
> Am I the only one disappointed by the fact that we haven't had a new
> infusion of parts in over 6 month? Maybe I missed some earlier discussion,
> but what gives?
>
> Orion
Well, perhaps the fact that what you've already downloaded has been free (to
you -- making it available has cost volunteers time and money) could quench some
of that disappointment.
The reason there hasn't been a parts update in a while is we are currently
working on making the way parts get approved and distributed better - so in the
future new parts will come more frequently, and not have to wait for a vote and
a group of parts to be assembled.
LDraw.org is a volunteer effort done by people with real lives outside of
maintaining the site. Steve, the Parts Guy (tm), has a full time job and a
family. I have school full time and other activities on top of that.
It disappoints me that I haven't had the time or energy to put into making the
site a better resource for the users. At the same time though, 'what gives?'
posts make me less and less interested in the project.
The next big thing, besides getting some other people started on editing pages,
is a series of discussion panels and tutorials at BrickFest 2001
(www.brickfest.com).
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney writes:
> The reason there hasn't been a parts update in a while is we are currently
> working on making the way parts get approved and distributed better - so in the
> future new parts will come more frequently, and not have to wait for a vote and
> a group of parts to be assembled.
This has come up enough times, after a long enough time, that perhaps some
mention of this should go onto the ldraw.org front page (just after the
"Contribute" blurb), or on the parts update page, or both.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
No insult or complaint was implied by my message. 'What gives?' is just my
way of being curious. I've been gone for the the last few month due to the
fact I'm in the U.S. Navy and was just wondering why. If you find "what
gives" disheartening I apologize.
-Orion
P.S. Being in the Navy has shown me that free time is a precious thing.
Thank you for spending your free time to provide us with the part we aready
have.
P.P.S. I like to help in some small way, if possible.
|
|
| |
"Orion" <pobursky@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GC9L4n.Dz1@lugnet.com...
> No insult or complaint was implied by my message. 'What gives?' is just my
> way of being curious. I've been gone for the the last few month due to the
> fact I'm in the U.S. Navy and was just wondering why. If you find "what
> gives" disheartening I apologize.
That's ok. Maybe for you "what gives" is a part of everyday language, but when
I hear it the phrase is usually associated with complaining, so that's how I
took it.
> P.S. Being in the Navy has shown me that free time is a precious thing.
> Thank you for spending your free time to provide us with the part we aready
> have.
You're welcome. I wish I could say it was fun all the time, but it isn't. It
started out fun though, and somehow I have to figure out a way to make it fun
again.
> P.P.S. I like to help in some small way, if possible.
Thanks. I'll jot down your name and address, and I have to discuss organizing
tasks a bit more with the others involved with the site. Then I'll email you.
We're kinda in a transitional period, behind the scenes a lot of discussion has
been going on about making the process of downloading DAT libraries and software
easier - including a parts license which allows distribution of the library
_separate_ from LDraw proper (the original DOS program), and a formal
organization structure (I've got a lot of paper on that one, perhaps I can work
on that on a 6hr flight coming up later this week, among other things to do on
the plane - Larry and Leo, lets chat at LEGOLAND about this stuff on Saturday).
Its overwhelming, especially when you get behind. I should have had a LeoCAD
review up about a month ago, but I let it slip aside (Sorry Leo!!). We've
gotten a lot discussed, but we have a ways to go. What I would give for a
weekend with all the contributors in person, a handful of computers on a
network, and high speed internet access. Lots would get done that way.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Orion" <pobursky@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GC97Iy.5L2@lugnet.com...
> > Am I the only one disappointed by the fact that we haven't had a new
> > infusion of parts in over 6 month? Maybe I missed some earlier discussion,
> > but what gives?
> >
> > Orion
>
> Well, perhaps the fact that what you've already downloaded has been free (to
> you -- making it available has cost volunteers time and money) could quench some
> of that disappointment.
>
> The reason there hasn't been a parts update in a while is we are currently
> working on making the way parts get approved and distributed better - so in the
> future new parts will come more frequently, and not have to wait for a vote and
> a group of parts to be assembled.
>
> LDraw.org is a volunteer effort done by people with real lives outside of
> maintaining the site. Steve, the Parts Guy (tm), has a full time job and a
> family. I have school full time and other activities on top of that.
>
> It disappoints me that I haven't had the time or energy to put into making the
> site a better resource for the users. At the same time though, 'what gives?'
> posts make me less and less interested in the project.
>
> The next big thing, besides getting some other people started on editing pages,
> is a series of discussion panels and tutorials at BrickFest 2001
> (www.brickfest.com).
>
> -Tim
M'sieur Tim,
I thank you for concerning yourself about the well-being of the parts
authors. I, however, am one that actually tries to design new elements *during*
his work hours (because I'm usually too spread out otherwise). As for the person
who does the actual updating, I cannot speak for him and can only wish him well
in all of his labors. I do have to admit that it is not always a "cake-and-ice-
cream" endeavor, but the fun is in using the finished product in one of your own
models (or seeing it used in other people's). As of now, I can't wait until
someone is finally able to use my old-style 4 x 10 x 2/3 Car Frame or my various
official space-themed Complete Minifig Shortcuts. In fact, I used them in the
Classic Space Contest, as did Jason Mantor.
I would go about making more new elements (non-custom patterns, at least) if I
had the knowledge to do so. Until then, I can only improve on the pre-existing
ones.
James J.
"Don't just 'play well', play better!"
P.S.: If anyone has questions about any of my custom-decorated and built
elements, such as my 1 x 2 C.V.G.S. (Compact Video Game System) Tile,
e-mail me at jejackso@memphis.edu and I will tell you all that you need to know.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, James Jackson writes:
> but the fun is in using the finished product in one of your own
> models (or seeing it used in other people's).
Which raises the question (for me anyway) -- where can I get these parts
before they're voted upon? You know, strictly for preview purposes
only...honest. ;-)
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
> Which raises the question (for me anyway) --
> where can I get these parts before they're voted upon?
Regrettably, the only way I know of to get any
of the DAT files posted but not yet packaged and released,
is to hunt for them one-by-one here at LUGNet.CAD... :-(
This is one of the reasons I was so thankful that Tore
was doing the Parts Tracker; using that, I could instantly
click on the URL for whatever DAT file I was looking for
(which was a *REAL* help when Todd had to temporarily
disable LUGNet's "search" function).
Franklin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.cad, James Jackson writes:
> > but the fun is in using the finished product in one of your own
> > models (or seeing it used in other people's).
>
> Which raises the question (for me anyway) -- where can I get these parts
> before they're voted upon? You know, strictly for preview purposes
> only...honest. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
Jeremy,
You don't have to beg... I am perfectly willing to share all the parts I
have created or updated that are either official or could have a multi-purpose
uses. For example, the 1 x 2 C.V.G.S. Tile is a 4-color version of a 5-colored
tile I made for my own space series, H:Masters. I also have a torso that I
designed from scratch for my other space team, the Marauders. However, it
looked so good that I made versions for a soccer/futbol team and even one for
the McLaren F-1 drivers. You are welcome to the G.P. version of it as well.
Aside from file-numbering concerns for official archives, all 6 of my Complete
(Space) Figure Shortcuts are ready to go, as is the Solid Head that the first 5
will need.
By now you're asking yourself how you can get your hands on these
trinkets. It can be answered easily: e-mail me. Send me an e-mail at
jejackso@memphis.edu and I will set up and send you all the parts you need --
including the Space Nose with Black & Silver "V" Pattern -- soon thereafter.
Like I said, I'm not going to horde the official things I build -- someone
might submit a rotten one and screw us all up! ;) Just have fun with them and
give credit where it's due.
-- James J.
"Don't just 'play well', play better!"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> > Which raises the question (for me anyway) --
> > where can I get these parts before they're voted upon?
> Regrettably, the only way I know of to get any
> of the DAT files posted but not yet packaged and released,
> is to hunt for them one-by-one here at LUGNet.CAD... :-(
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what,
hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going
to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified?
Give me unofficial parts, I don't care. It is irresponsible to let this go
on much further -- the old system may not have been stellar, but the current
system is obviously far, far worse. At this rate, with this kind of
exposure, there's really no reason for parts authors to continue their hard
work.
Let's make these parts available so that people can use them. If this means
releasing them with a disclaimer that they may change before getting the
"official unoffical part" blessing, then fine. If this means parts authors
bypassing the ldraw.org procedures, then fine.
But by all means, get those parts out now.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
>
> Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what,
> hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going
> to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified?
Perhaps we could break the job into smaller chunks, like maybe 20 parts a
week to relieve the pipeline pressure.
-Chuck
|
|
| |
"Chuck Sommerville" <chucks@he.net> wrote in message
news:GCMILA.AwH@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> >
> > Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what,
> > hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going
> > to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified?
>
>
> Perhaps we could break the job into smaller chunks, like maybe 20 parts a
> week to relieve the pipeline pressure.
I've been pushing for this inside for quite some time, with little response.
Even splitting up the work for a big update among some of us who discuss
LDraw.org issues offline.
I'm still mixed, between the need for an update, and the understanding that this
is a volunteer project that no one gets paid for, though.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> I'm still mixed, between the need for an update, and the understanding that this
> is a volunteer project that no one gets paid for, though.
I'm not understanding here. The parts are available in file form in a some
cluster in some repository somewhere, yes? Publishing them, even in an
unofficial process, would simply consist of putting them on a server. There
would be little-to-no work needed, just making the files available and maybe
writing up a 2-line disclaimer concerning quality and unreviewd parts.
Hell, you could make this part of the review (preview?) process! Why is
being paid for this an issue?
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GCMIxI.BvL@lugnet.com...
> I've been pushing for this inside for quite some time, with little response.
> Even splitting up the work for a big update among some of us who discuss
> LDraw.org issues offline.
>
> I'm still mixed, between the need for an update, and the understanding that • this
> is a volunteer project that no one gets paid for, though.
Just sent another email to a few people about this. I hope there'll be some
progress.
-Tim
|
|
| |
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCMJot.E07@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > I'm still mixed, between the need for an update, and the understanding that • this
> > is a volunteer project that no one gets paid for, though.
>
> I'm not understanding here. The parts are available in file form in a some
> cluster in some repository somewhere, yes? Publishing them, even in an
> unofficial process, would simply consist of putting them on a server. There
> would be little-to-no work needed, just making the files available and maybe
> writing up a 2-line disclaimer concerning quality and unreviewd parts.
> Hell, you could make this part of the review (preview?) process! Why is
> being paid for this an issue?
Kinda unrelated statement, I intended it to reflect more the project as a whole.
I think (and I accept that this will never be the case) that the whole community
would be better off if volunteers were paid (well, then they wouldn't be
volunteers, would they?)
I do it out of my free time because I want to, but I get burned out. When I get
burned out, people still put high expectations on me. They need to understand
its volunteer and not put too high of an expectation on results.
The same with the others who work on the project. We've got other stuff going
on. This isn't our job. If this *was* our job, things would be better for the
community, because we would have to perform to earn our wage and then more
things would be made available.
However, because of the nature of LDraw, the legal issues with TLC, etc, this
won't happen. That's fine. I've made my point (and now I think I should give
it a rest). So I will.
And I will still continue to volunteer my time and effort, but in exchange I
would appreciate it if users would try to understand the nature of the project
and be patient. I've always made it open to more volunteers (and I've gotta
work this week on managing some of that, which I will).
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> And I will still continue to volunteer my time and effort, but in exchange I
> would appreciate it if users would try to understand the nature of the project
> and be patient. I've always made it open to more volunteers (and I've gotta
> work this week on managing some of that, which I will).
This isn't really a matter of patience; it's been far too long than it needs
to be. We need a better system. In the mean-time, the factors contributing
to the delay can be addressed, and quickly.
e.g. What are the factors holding back the parts? If it's quality, slap on
a disclaimer. Call it an unsupported preview.
If it's getting authors' permission, let them know you're posting the parts
and give 'em a day to respond.
If it's the effort to distribute, heck, put them in a bare, readable HTTP
directory a la CPAN.
People, including myself, are getting pretty impatient with the system.
Parts authors must be getting upset that their works have no audience. This
doesn't have to be difficult.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> > > Which raises the question (for me anyway) --
> > > where can I get these parts before they're voted upon?
> > Regrettably, the only way I know of to get any
> > of the DAT files posted but not yet packaged and released,
> > is to hunt for them one-by-one here at LUGNet.CAD... :-(
>
> Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what,
> hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going
> to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified?
It can't be "justified", but stamping one's foot isn't going to help,
Jeremy, and you know that.
I think what we need is an unoffical update. Package them up as unofficial
and tell people to take their chances. But realise that there is probably at
least one part in that update that will break something. What part is it?
Dunno. That's what the review process determines.
Rather than just dumping theme somewhere, though, they DO need to be
packaged up the same way the other releases are. Then people can install
them the same way, and when review happens, the replacements for the ones
that have issues that missed getting identified in this unreviewed update
will be in a subsequent update and replace them.
Note that I am not volunteering for this, if you think the delays are bad
now, just put me in charge and pine for "now" as "the good old days" because
I'd make things worse.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> It can't be "justified", but stamping one's foot isn't going to help,
> Jeremy, and you know that.
Fine, okay, you can call it what you want. The fact remains, something
needs to be done. I'm making it known the only way I know how. The delay
in the parts update system is becoming pretty unpopular, and it begs the
question: is this being done for the users, or for the system?
> I think what we need is an unoffical update. Package them up as unofficial
> and tell people to take their chances. But realise that there is probably at
> least one part in that update that will break something. What part is it?
> Dunno. That's what the review process determines.
As long as the preview is released with sufficient (read: any) warning of
such, I doubt people will complain.
A *significant* side benefit of this is that obviously broken pieces will
have a better chance of being found before being put through the voting process.
> Rather than just dumping theme somewhere, though, they DO need to be
> packaged up the same way the other releases are. Then people can install
> them the same way, and when review happens, the replacements for the ones
> that have issues that missed getting identified in this unreviewed update
> will be in a subsequent update and replace them.
*sigh* I disagree.
Firstly, you don't want any kind of official stamp on an unofficial
distribution. This is so that the effort it takes for individual end-users
to install unofficial parts has a better chance of being remembered, and so
that there's no confusion about the difference between an offical and an
unofficial update. If someone *really* wants to play with an unofficial
part, then you need to assume a minimum amount of competency for the
end-user. This is equally true for parts/* and p/* .
Also, since time is a huge issue here, why go through the effort of
pretty-packaging them at all?
Lastly, and this is the biggie, if someone's looking for a part and it only
exists in the unofficial parts preview, then that someone is probably not
likely to want to dump the entire unofficial set into their parts directory.
The thing is, there's a bottleneck here because one or several people don't
have the time to push the update system changes through. This is
understandable and perfectly fine, given the volunteer nature of LDraw.
Offload that time onto the end-users, then.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
I mostly agree so I mostly snipped...
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> The thing is, there's a bottleneck here because one or several people don't
> have the time to push the update system changes through. This is
> understandable and perfectly fine, given the volunteer nature of LDraw.
> Offload that time onto the end-users, then.
How does that help? That is, suppose it would take 40 man hours of work to
resolve the bottleneck and get the new process on line and running. If that
40 hours avoids 400 or 4000 hours of user effort, isn't it worth it for the
users to wait?
I dunno.
Maybe you are saying let the users decide for themselves?
Would you be willing to volunteer to help get the new process fixed?
Conversely, you said that it was OK that users have to go to extra effort to
get parts. Right now, the extra effort every user goes through is to search
the entire newsgroup for the dat file. Would you be willing to go find 10,
and put them on a community updateable resource, if everyone else that was
complaining about the bottleneck also went and found 10 different ones and
posted them to the same resource too? Maybe that would BE your 'interim update'
If not, what did you mean about not wanting an officialy
packaged/installeable update, exactly?
I am just brainstorming (and this may generate me some flame mail too, I dunno)
Please brainstorm too, about what users could do to alleviate this, at least
temporarily. I have seen previews of the new system and it will be very very
nice once it is done.
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > The thing is, there's a bottleneck here because one or several people don't
> > have the time to push the update system changes through. This is
> > understandable and perfectly fine, given the volunteer nature of LDraw.
> > Offload that time onto the end-users, then.
> How does that help? That is, suppose it would take 40 man hours of work to
> resolve the bottleneck and get the new process on line and running. If that
> 40 hours avoids 400 or 4000 hours of user effort, isn't it worth it for the
> users to wait?
The bugger here is that we could play what-if with the schedule all year
long. I won't do that.
> Maybe you are saying let the users decide for themselves?
Why not? Aren't the users why the whole LDraw thing happens, anyway?
> Would you be willing to volunteer to help get the new process fixed?
I would, but only to get it done my way -- quick & cheap & dirty. I doubt
that would go over very well with the LDraw Powers...
> Conversely, you said that it was OK that users have to go to extra effort to
> get parts. Right now, the extra effort every user goes through is to search
> the entire newsgroup for the dat file. Would you be willing to go find 10,
> and put them on a community updateable resource, if everyone else that was
> complaining about the bottleneck also went and found 10 different ones and
> posted them to the same resource too? Maybe that would BE your 'interim update'
I could already do that now. Why should anyone have to search the
newsgroups for DAT files if they've already been collected?
Or perhaps that's the problem. Have they been collected? Or have they been
only partially collected? And if that is the case, where did the collection
stop?
> If not, what did you mean about not wanting an officialy
> packaged/installeable update, exactly?
An unofficial update shouldn't be "installable"; that is, it should not be
as easy to snarf as an official update. I gave some (IMO) very good reasons
in my post before. To summarize:
a) it should take more effort to install since the greater effort is
remembered more by the end-user
b) it should take more effort to install in order to reflect the greater
risk of bad parts
c) people who want to take the greater risk with preview pieces should take
a similar responsibility for their preview-philic actions, and therefore be
familiar enough with LDraw to recover from a bad piece, and therefore be
familiar with LDraw enough to install new primitives as well as new parts
d) packaging unofficial pieces with ARJ or LHA or ZIP or whatever, in the
exact same format as official updates, takes more time than just putting the
files out there
e) people looking for parts in the preview set probably won't want the
entire set all at once
f) (and this one is new) recovering from the whole set of preview parts is
much more difficult for the end-user than recovering from a small handful of
preview parts
> I am just brainstorming (and this may generate me some flame mail too, I dunno)
I like my solution -- just put them out there for download with a
disclaimer. It's the simplest in terms of work on the maintainer's end, and
enforces a certain level of competency on the end-user's part.
Any solution that takes the least amount of time & effort with the maximum
amount of exposure for preview parts would be good, however. As long as
something is done to get the parts out.
> I have seen previews of the new system and it will be very very
> nice once it is done.
I'm sure it will be. But it hasn't been available, and won't be until it's
done, and it's blocking the new parts until it is done.
This, BTW, is the one of the top problems in the software industry, and one
which you should be very familiar with. I don't know what to call it, but
it's somewhat related to crepping featuritis, and can turn a very good piece
of software into vaporware.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
> just put them out there for download ...
> It's the simplest in terms of work on the maintainer's end, and
> enforces a certain level of competency on the end-user's part.
Ummmm.... Isn't that what the lugnet.cad.dat.parts newsgroup (or Tore's temp
parts tracker) is for? You go looking for the part you want and install it.
That's what I've been doing. What I wanted when I asked my original
question (which has now gone way beyong the quasi-polite questioning that I
started) was an official update so that I could install it on many different
computers easily without having to manually do it.
-Orion
(This is what I get for coming out of lurk mode)
|
|
| |
I've been playing with ldraw and all it's wonderful part for only a short
time now. What I don't understand in this discussion is what is the
difference in an 'offical' vs 'unoffical' part. Apart from whewre I can
download offical part what is different? Will my MLCAD crash if I use an
unoffical part? Will L3P and/or L3PAO crash? Will POV-Ray *NOT* Render them?
If the answer to these questions are NO, which I think they are as I have
been using the 9v train track piece in some of my .dat files and none of
these have happened then what is all the big deal about? It is just a
'quality' issue? If that is the case, what is meant by quality?
Thanks and all the authors who make parts keep up the good work!
Ahui
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky writes:
>
> Ummmm.... Isn't that what the lugnet.cad.dat.parts newsgroup (or Tore's temp
> parts tracker) is for? You go looking for the part you want and install it.
> That's what I've been doing.
Orion, you bring up a great idea that could solve the problem in the
interum. Take all the parts you can find on Tore's tracker and in the parts
newsgroup, put them in a self extracting archive or .zip file, and post the
file somewhere like brickshelf with a disclaimer that they are pre-release.
I think this would satisfy most people until the new system is ready to go
online. This would also help you solve your problem of multiple installs.
-Chuck
|
|
| |
I think I'll do that, if I can find the time (work in the real world's going
to get pretty hectic over the next month). Thanks Chuck.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky writes:
> I think I'll do that, if I can find the time (work in the real world's going
> to get pretty hectic over the next month). Thanks Chuck.
>
> -Orion
You might also ask the parts author's permission before including their
parts in the "pre-release". Some people can be touchy about this. I'm not a
parts author, so no need to ask me.
-Chuck
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chuck Sommerville writes:
> I'm not a
> parts author, so no need to ask me.
>
> -Chuck
OK, so I lied, I guess I am a parts author of sorts:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=2288
These are on Tore's tracker. Feel free to include my updated heads.
-Chuck
|
|
| |
Hello Larry, Jeremy
I'm following this thread very closely... and i have to jump in at this
point.
>
> Would you be willing to volunteer to help get the new process fixed?
I think Tim has waited to long to get help from other volunteers. There has
been at least some people in the newsgroups and some via email offering help
to get the parts update on the way - including me. I did not even get an
answer. It is one thing to be busy and stressed but it is another thing not
to notice that you could accept some help when you are just overloaded.
I have seen a whole company breaking down by this because some person did
not know when to delegate tasks to manage the whole rest... and i see Tim
Courtney more in the function of a manager.. I think he has to realize that
by hisself first.
Greetings,
Carsten
|
|
| |
Hello Chuck,
> > Ummmm.... Isn't that what the lugnet.cad.dat.parts newsgroup (or Tore's • temp
> > parts tracker) is for? You go looking for the part you want and install • it.
> > That's what I've been doing.
Yes. That is a nice idea but some of the parts dont still have pattern
numbers or copyrights are missing or something like that.
> Orion, you bring up a great idea that could solve the problem in the
> interum. Take all the parts you can find on Tore's tracker and in the • parts
> newsgroup, put them in a self extracting archive or .zip file, and post • the
> file somewhere like brickshelf with a disclaimer that they are • pre-release.
> I think this would satisfy most people until the new system is ready to go
> online. This would also help you solve your problem of multiple installs.
Hmm.. I am a parts authour but I really would appreciate it more if some at
least checks these parts closely for errors and form and get small official
releases on their way instead of a whole big mess of unofficial not right
named and war parts. When I build a model with new parts in LDRaw I want to
be sure that i can open this model a year later and it still looks the same
and no prts are missing or changed their orienation or something like that.
That would be worst case for me.... I would not like the parts I did to be
in this scenario.
I like the idea with little official parts updates much more!
Greetings,
Carsten
|
|
| |
"Carsten Schmitz" <casz@gmx.de> wrote in message news:GCMtBs.ByD@lugnet.com...
> I think Tim has waited to long to get help from other volunteers. There has
> been at least some people in the newsgroups and some via email offering help
> to get the parts update on the way - including me. I did not even get an
> answer. It is one thing to be busy and stressed but it is another thing not
> to notice that you could accept some help when you are just overloaded.
>
> I have seen a whole company breaking down by this because some person did
> not know when to delegate tasks to manage the whole rest... and i see Tim
> Courtney more in the function of a manager.. I think he has to realize that
> by hisself first.
Good point, and I agree. I've gotta work out some management stuff on my own -
especially this week. I'll also be lowering my standards of expectations for
contributors - if people want to contribute pages, just make a text file of the
content, send me the images and the text, and I'll format it. Its too much of a
pain for both me and the contributor to have to format it my way themselves -
they have to get used to it, more demand on them, and I'm such a perfectionist I
end up fixing it anyways.
But back to the parts issue, I'm really not responsible at all. Steve's the
Head Parts Guy. And Steve is working on a parts update system now, we just have
to work out the issue of the immediate update (unofficial, disclaimers attached,
is my opinion of the way to go) to satisfy the users and come back and do the
update right later (using the new system) and have the parts officially added.
I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on the
site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer attached.
Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@ldraw.org
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
|
|
| |
As you can imagine, behind the scenes discussion is running fast and furious
(not in the Mad sense, in the fast sense...oh never mind) The following are
rambles/my opinions, not official statements of position (remember I am the
nonvoting member who plays gadfly...). Take them with a large grain of salt
Doing an official vote on a small chunk is too much work for the benefit and
counter productive to long term goals so not as likely to happen... the real
way, once done, is better. (unless there were a putsch and the entire
current "board" were voted out and entirely new people came in and started
running things. Not very nice and not very likely to happen, either and if
it did you would see large delays while the new gang tried to come to grips
with what the heck it means to do a parts release. Tres work!)
if something unofficial came out from the gang, it probably would NOT be the
way Sproat wants it. Orion's install problem matters a lot. What Sproat
wants is already available now, you just have to dig harder to find the
parts. It probably would be a big zip or exe packaged similarly to more
official installs.
If that bugged Sproat or whoever, nothing is stopping him or whoever from
collecting and making available whatever alternative mechanism they like.
Nothing except the authors wishes and the license, which isn't in place yet
but will be soon for new submissions, we hope.
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Carsten Schmitz writes:
> Hello Chuck,
>
>
> > > Ummmm.... Isn't that what the lugnet.cad.dat.parts newsgroup (or Tore's
> > > temp
> > > parts tracker) is for? You go looking for the part you want and install
> > > it.
> > > That's what I've been doing.
>
> Yes. That is a nice idea but some of the parts dont still have pattern
> numbers or copyrights are missing or something like that.
This is a problem to the scheme. Can Authors who are paying attention fix
this as much as possible??
> > Orion, you bring up a great idea that could solve the problem in the
> > interum. Take all the parts you can find on Tore's tracker and in the
> > parts
> > newsgroup, put them in a self extracting archive or .zip file, and post
> > the
> > file somewhere like brickshelf with a disclaimer that they are
> > pre-release.
> Hmm.. I am a parts authour but I really would appreciate it more if some at
> least checks these parts closely for errors and form and get small official
> releases on their way instead of a whole big mess of unofficial not right
> named and war parts. When I build a model with new parts in LDRaw I want to
> be sure that i can open this model a year later and it still looks the same
> and no prts are missing or changed their orienation or something like that.
Easy fix for that. Don't install this unofficial release, then. If you
install it, you are committing that you want parts now even if not quite
right, rather than more perfect parts later. You can't have it both ways.
Sproat dinged me (rightly so) about scope creep (that's what it is called,
not creeping featurism) pushing out the new tracker end date. Well, the
scope is what it is for this parts release. There is the usual triangle here
of effort, quality level, and calendar. Effort isn't available to be
increased so if calendar is to be moved, quality level has to give.
> That would be worst case for me.... I would not like the parts I did to be
> in this scenario.
Well this adds complexity if someone has to figure out what is in and what
is out. Maybe major authors need to repost or dump to some common place the
parts they are willing to see in this interim release and if not present,
let the users who want them ask the authors nicely if they will relent.
> I like the idea with little official parts updates much more!
Not very likely to happen with the current administration. And before you
take to the streets and advocate revolution, consider the alternative. ;-)
++Lar
|
|
| |
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> Give me unofficial parts, I don't care.
I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw.
How about simply encouraging the parts authors to post their parts to
lugnet.cad.dat.parts? That way, people can see which parts are in the
pipeline. Besides, people can comment on the quality of the parts,
the names, the numbers and the position. And should anybody want to
use some of the unofficial parts, they can do so at their own risk.
It's a win win situation.
Ok, so I have made this point a few times already in the past and
virtually noone has responded.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
"Fredrik Glöckner" wrote:
> "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
>
> > Give me unofficial parts, I don't care.
>
> I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw.
>
> How about simply encouraging the parts authors to post their parts to
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts? That way, people can see which parts are in the
> pipeline. Besides, people can comment on the quality of the parts,
> the names, the numbers and the position. And should anybody want to
> use some of the unofficial parts, they can do so at their own risk.
> It's a win win situation.
>
> Ok, so I have made this point a few times already in the past and
> virtually noone has responded.
>
> Fredrik
Most unofficial parts ARE posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts
Either that or they are available for download from the web :)
|
|
| |
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> [...] "pushing for this inside" [...] "among some of us who discuss
> LDraw.org issues offline" [...] "sent another email to a few
> people" [...]
It seems to me that LDraw has become a project of secrecy and inside
work. When did it stop being an "open" project? When did discussions
concerning LDraw cease to be done in the open? I think I missed this.
I realize that whoever work with the project may want some "anonymity"
to avoid being "spammed" with beginner's questions and so on. It is
probably hard to direct people to the newsgroups. Some people tend to
want to email a single person with a question, rather than posting on
a newsgroup. But is there really a need to hide all the work from the
public anyway?
I realize also that discussions on the newsgroup tend to get all noisy
and go nowhere. This is probably frustrating to work with, and I can
see the desire to go underground. It is probably a lot easier to get
things done when working alone, not having to achieve consensus among
a diverse group as the people (left) on lugnet.cad.*.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
Jonathan Wilson <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> writes:
> Most unofficial parts ARE posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts Either
> that or they are available for download from the web :)
Well, when an official vote/update is announced, I'm am usually
impressed at the number of new parts that I have not yet seen. So I
was assuming that those parts had been submitted without having been
posted, and that this still goes on.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
>
> > Give me unofficial parts, I don't care.
>
> I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw.
Agree - unofficial means they may change - and if the change is to the origin
or orientation then users will get (even more) upset.
>
> How about simply encouraging the parts authors to post their parts to
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts? That way, people can see which parts are in the
> pipeline.
I always do,
(http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?q=%2Bnew+%2Bpart+%2Bdee&qn=20) except
maybe bug-fixes, BUT
> Besides, people can comment on the quality of the parts, the names, the
> numbers and the position.
... I rarely get any comment, good or bad.
> And should anybody want to use some of the unofficial parts, they can do so at
> their own risk. It's a win win situation.
>
>
> Ok, so I have made this point a few times already in the past and
> virtually noone has responded.
>
>
> Fredrik
Chris Dee
|
|
| |
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> writes:
> ... I rarely get any comment, good or bad.
That's too bad.
I notice your parts, but I rarely comment on them because I'm not into
those kind of parts that you model. Your parts are commonly related
to minifigs, and I rarely use them.
Besides, your parts are nearly always perfect anyway! ;-)
Fredrik
|
|
| |
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:GCMuJ8.E5M@lugnet.com...
> I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on • the
> site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer • attached.
> Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
> through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
I think this needs a little modification - if the parts could be zipped
separately then people could just get the ones they want, and as new
unofficial parts are sent they could be added as individual zips rather than
having to keep creating new batches of parts. If only I had a web server
with MS ASP on I could throw together a system to handle uploading of parts
and automatic conversion to zip format in about 30 minutes, it's that
simple. I guess I'm going to have to look into getting ADSL at home and
running a web server on my laptop so I can help out with this sort of thing
:)
BTW: if the unofficial releases are individually zipped you could also link
the parts ref to them so people could search for and download just the parts
they want. Not sure how practical that would be (plus I guess you'd need to
link all the officially parts to a "offical release" page and the "not done"
parts to a "not done yet" page which could make things a bit difficult).
Dan
|
|
| |
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com...
> ... I rarely get any comment, good or bad.
I've only done one part so far and I've had just 4 comments (1 on an "almost
done it" post, 2 on a "done it but no optional lines yet", and 1 by private
mail). How can Steve (and any else involved in parts officialisation) get
through the masses if nobody is going to look at the parts and followup on
whether they're fine or not? I feel that I don't have enough experience to
do this, and the authors themselves can't really do it as they would have
biased opinion on their own parts, so it's falls to the readers of
cad.dat.parts to do this and it just doesn't seem to be happening - everyone
wants a parts update but nobody appears to be prepared to check the parts
that have been posted and comment on them. If this doesn't happen now how
can the new system Steve is building work - I thought that was going to be
based on people checking the parts themselves and voting on them to get the
officialised, but if nobody's doing it now what will happen in the future?
I know that it can be really hard to find unofficial parts as sometimes they
seem to posted to Steve but not to dat.parts so it would be beneficial to be
able to download them, *but* there really needs to be a huge notice saying
that the parts are being made available so that people can check them and
vote on them, and that by downloading them they agree to try and do their
part in this to get them officialised, in a similar way to handing out of
beta software is often accompanied by an agreement that you will feedback
problems and comments to the developers before final release (I've been
through this with ORA and MS and I know how important feedback can be at
beta stage).
Dan
|
|
| |
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> >
> > > Give me unofficial parts, I don't care.
> >
> > I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw.
>
>
> Agree - unofficial means they may change - and if the change is to the origin
> or orientation then users will get (even more) upset.
Disagree. We package the parts and put a whoppin disclaimer on them. They are
not official, just compiled and made easily available. We make it clear that
parts will change and that the user uses at their own risk. Then, once the new
system is finished, we run those same parts through it, and release an official
update.
This is a special situation done one time to satisfy the huge desire for an
update.
-Tim
|
|
| |
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:qrd1yq98itn.fsf@hephaistos.uio.no...
> "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
>
> > [...] "pushing for this inside" [...] "among some of us who discuss
> > LDraw.org issues offline" [...] "sent another email to a few
> > people" [...]
>
>
> It seems to me that LDraw has become a project of secrecy and inside
> work. When did it stop being an "open" project? When did discussions
> concerning LDraw cease to be done in the open? I think I missed this.
>
> I realize that whoever work with the project may want some "anonymity"
> to avoid being "spammed" with beginner's questions and so on. It is
> probably hard to direct people to the newsgroups. Some people tend to
> want to email a single person with a question, rather than posting on
> a newsgroup. But is there really a need to hide all the work from the
> public anyway?
Its not a matter of hiding the work, see below.
> I realize also that discussions on the newsgroup tend to get all noisy
> and go nowhere. This is probably frustrating to work with, and I can
> see the desire to go underground. It is probably a lot easier to get
> things done when working alone, not having to achieve consensus among
> a diverse group as the people (left) on lugnet.cad.*.
This is the case. Newsgroup discussions get noisy - people tend to have long
drawn out arguments, and most of the time those people aren't even directly
involved. We discussed this in NY when just the LDraw people got together
(aside from LEGO). Because of the efforts to draft the parts license, form an
official organization, etc, we have found it more appropriate to move some
discussion off of LUGNET. This is because we want progress - a smaller group
who is more dedicated can stay focused easier and more will get done. This is
from experience.
This is the best explanation I can give. Its not out of a desire to be secret,
elite, or anything of that nature. Its a desire that a lot of us who are doing
the work have to keep things rolling and not get bogged down by newsgroup
discussion. It results from feelings expressed at a couple in person meetings -
NYC and my visit to Steve's where Steve, Larry, and I discussed LDraw issues.
The good news from this is, allthough sometimes it moves slow, we are able to
get a lot more done becuase it is small. We've got a parts license 95% done and
ready to go. We'll tackle the organization stuff so LDraw can do more things
and act as an entity.
The newsgroups are still good for discussing, and interacting with those who do
work on LDraw related stuff. They've helped out a lot over the last two years
towards the development of the site, and will continue to be an invaluable
resource. Some of us just find a need to discuss certain things privately so
decisions get made faster - we're the ones doing the work and we're the ones
whose work the decision will directly effect - the work of the website and the
software being released.
Hope this helps
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on the
> site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer attached.
> Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
> through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him
working on it, it's gonna be good.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> It seems to me that LDraw has become a project of secrecy and inside
> work. When did it stop being an "open" project? When did discussions
> concerning LDraw cease to be done in the open? I think I missed this.
Thank you Fredrik, for so succinctly expressing what I was feeling. I was
building up a lot of frustration because I felt I had to make a loud noise
in order to be heard.
> I realize also that discussions on the newsgroup tend to get all noisy
> and go nowhere. This is probably frustrating to work with, and I can
> see the desire to go underground. It is probably a lot easier to get
> things done when working alone, not having to achieve consensus among
> a diverse group as the people (left) on lugnet.cad.*.
I think the discussions should still be in the open. No consensus needs to
be reached in .cad per se, as long as those responsible for the
administration agree -- but issues like the long-term planning,
organization, and meeting with Lego using NDAs should not be done with the
LDraw users in the dark.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Daniel Crichton writes:
> I think this needs a little modification - if the parts could be zipped
> separately then people could just get the ones they want, and as new
> unofficial parts are sent they could be added as individual zips rather than
> having to keep creating new batches of parts. If only I had a web server
> [...]
Let's not reinvent the wheel. This process is already largely done, I would
think, as part of the new parts update system now in development. The
interim solution needs to be quick & easy for the implementors.
Cheers,
- jproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on the
> > site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer attached.
> > Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
> > through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
>
> This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him
> working on it, it's gonna be good.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jeremy! Who do you think would be
doing a significant portion (hopefully not all, but non zero) of the
packaging task?
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on the
> > > site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer attached.
> > > Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
> > > through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
> > This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him
> > working on it, it's gonna be good.
> You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jeremy! Who do you think would be
> doing a significant portion (hopefully not all, but non zero) of the
> packaging task?
Zipping up the parts already collected: 5 minutes
Writing the disclaimer: 2 minutes
Uploading zipfile and disclaimer to LDRAW.ORG: 3 minutes
Catching the warm glow as the parts preview is released: Priceless.
For the really big tasks there's a design committee. For everything else,
there's SmallTask.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > > I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on the
> > > > site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer attached.
> > > > Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
> > > > through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
> > > This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him
> > > working on it, it's gonna be good.
> > You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jeremy! Who do you think would be
> > doing a significant portion (hopefully not all, but non zero) of the
> > packaging task?
>
> Zipping up the parts already collected: 5 minutes
>
> Writing the disclaimer: 2 minutes
>
> Uploading zipfile and disclaimer to LDRAW.ORG: 3 minutes
>
> Catching the warm glow as the parts preview is released: Priceless.
>
> For the really big tasks there's a design committee. For everything else,
> there's SmallTask.
Do you really think this is a 10 minute job? If so you must really have a
low opinion of the gang, then, that they would hold out on you to save a
mere 10 minutes of their time.
I hope that's not the case, but rather that you're just really confused
about how hard it is to do this.
What terrible choices you face me with, though.
Let this drop for a bit, eh? Something will be done. Time to let this rest
before emotions crest above flood stage.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Do you really think this is a 10 minute job? If so you must really have a
> low opinion of the gang, then, that they would hold out on you to save a
> mere 10 minutes of their time.
> I hope that's not the case, but rather that you're just really confused
> about how hard it is to do this.
Well tell me then. Larry. How hard is it to just zip up the parts that have
already been submitted, and why? Are they all not sitting in a directory
somewhere on someone's hard drive? Or are they really scattered in an
ad-hoc fashion?
Trust me, I don't intend to argue needlessly over this. But someone's
misinformed; and if it's me, I'd like to fix that.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Let's not reinvent the wheel. This process is already largely done, I would
> think, as part of the new parts update system now in development. The
> interim solution needs to be quick & easy for the implementors.
The problem I see with releasing the current unofficial parts in a single
download is that it's going to make it harder for anyone who wants to help
out in checking individual parts - they're going to have to download a large
ZIP file of parts to find the one they want, and if the new system takes a
long time to get up and running then I can see that in the near future there
will be a call for yet another unofficial interim release and then there
will be 2, or 3, or more lumps of parts to download, making it even harder
to find individual parts. The whole point of posting unofficial parts to
cad.dat.parts, at least as far as I could tell in my short time here, was to
provide a way for LDraw (and clones) users to review the parts and suggest
fixes, basically providing a way to get the parts completed to near
perfection before being added to the official release. By providing a ZIP
containing all the current unofficial parts that Steve has collected it's
obvious that this just won't happen, and Steve doesn't have time to review
them all himself (I'm making a sweeping assumption here!). I can see why an
official release is better - unofficial releases will just end up with only
cursory checks made on the parts and dilute the quality of the existing parts.
What a turn around - I've gone from asking for individual part downloads to
none at all!
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> "Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > > "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Give me unofficial parts, I don't care.
> > >
> > > I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw.
> >
> >
> > Agree - unofficial means they may change - and if the change is to the origin
> > or orientation then users will get (even more) upset.
>
> Disagree.
I think Chris is right. It will be challenging to disclaim an unofficial
update in a way that nobody will get upset later. When we do officialize
the pieces, there will be orientation changes, and different part numbers
with no forwarding addresses. Models built on unofficial parts are likely
to break.
There's also the issue of being able to later clean up the pollution from
an unofficial update. It would be easy to enough for people to use their
Windows Find to locate files containing the word 'unofficial', and delete
those files, but that would imply that we reviewed all the files before
releasing them, to make sure they all have the "unofficial element" line.
And reviewing all the files before an official release is something we're
trying to avoid, right?
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Sproaticus wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > I think the parts should be zipped into an unofficial archive, hosted on the
> > site under /download/updates/unofficial/ and with a big disclaimer attached.
> > Then the system Steve is working on should be completed, and the parts run
> > through it and updated properly and added into the official updates.
>
> This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him
> working on it, it's gonna be good.
I think I can use my part-voting-preparation utilities to generate a
webpage like the ones we use for voting. So people could check out what
the unofficial parts are, and either download them all in one shot, or just
grab what they want.
Steve
|
|
| |
HMM a minor idea. group all Unofficial parts in "Unofficial" group like
"brick" and "plate" type of group.
--
And they said 'Computers will never be in general use'
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:p61uetc27fg7opir90ti5ea3skc73ec63o@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > "Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com...
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > > > "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Give me unofficial parts, I don't care.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agree - unofficial means they may change - and if the change is to the • origin
> > > or orientation then users will get (even more) upset.
> >
> > Disagree.
>
> I think Chris is right. It will be challenging to disclaim an unofficial
> update in a way that nobody will get upset later. When we do officialize
> the pieces, there will be orientation changes, and different part numbers
> with no forwarding addresses. Models built on unofficial parts are likely
> to break.
>
> There's also the issue of being able to later clean up the pollution from
> an unofficial update. It would be easy to enough for people to use their
> Windows Find to locate files containing the word 'unofficial', and delete
> those files, but that would imply that we reviewed all the files before
> releasing them, to make sure they all have the "unofficial element" line.
> And reviewing all the files before an official release is something we're
> trying to avoid, right?
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:p61uetc27fg7opir90ti5ea3skc73ec63o@4ax.com...
> I think Chris is right. It will be challenging to disclaim an unofficial
> update in a way that nobody will get upset later. When we do officialize
> the pieces, there will be orientation changes, and different part numbers
> with no forwarding addresses. Models built on unofficial parts are likely
> to break.
>
> There's also the issue of being able to later clean up the pollution from
> an unofficial update. It would be easy to enough for people to use their
> Windows Find to locate files containing the word 'unofficial', and delete
> those files, but that would imply that we reviewed all the files before
> releasing them, to make sure they all have the "unofficial element" line.
> And reviewing all the files before an official release is something we're
> trying to avoid, right?
I think I see it now. As far as broken models go, we don't want that. I have
had a couple of those, and that's frustrating.
I got your message in this group about the news item, I'm working on that right
now. I think it might be good to make an official statement about the parts on
the site as well - so what exactly will we do?
You wrote in another message:
> I think I can use my part-voting-preparation utilities to generate a
> webpage like the ones we use for voting. So people could check out what
> the unofficial parts are, and either download them all in one shot, or just
> grab what they want.
>
> Steve
Isn't this the same thing as releasing an unofficial update? I know people want
parts, and something needs to be done.
I went back into the emails I have and read your latest message about the Parts
Tracker progress and Dan's comments you pasted. You recently mentioned he is
busy - Dan (or Steve if you know), when do you think is a reasonable timeframe
to get a testable version up on the server? When do you think is a reasonable
timeframe to get the official parts release out?
I think that we need to make a final decision about the parts update and
announce it - and assure the users that it is being worked on. To me that means
in a separate thread, possibly to .announce, and posted on the site.
Tonight I'll keep churning on the SSI for the site, and throw together some news
to put up.
-Tim
|
|
| |
how about making all unofficial parts go to "unofficial" group like bricks
and plates?
--
And they said 'Computers will never be in general use'
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCo1LK.Gpx@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Do you really think this is a 10 minute job? If so you must really have a
> > low opinion of the gang, then, that they would hold out on you to save a
> > mere 10 minutes of their time.
>
> > I hope that's not the case, but rather that you're just really confused
> > about how hard it is to do this.
>
> Well tell me then. Larry. How hard is it to just zip up the parts that • have
> already been submitted, and why? Are they all not sitting in a directory
> somewhere on someone's hard drive? Or are they really scattered in an
> ad-hoc fashion?
>
> Trust me, I don't intend to argue needlessly over this. But someone's
> misinformed; and if it's me, I'd like to fix that.
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Rolf Redford writes:
> HMM a minor idea. group all Unofficial parts in "Unofficial" group like
> "brick" and "plate" type of group.
That's a good idea, but it requires editing *all* of the files to be
released. The idea of an unofficial release is that it's quick'n'dirty - as
little work as possible. Processing a large number files, even if it is
just a minor change, takes some time.
Steve
|
|
| |
Just use a script to do that or even a small program, I don't think you
need to manually change each file.
Leonardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com>
To: <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>; <lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw@lugnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Rolf Redford writes:
> > HMM a minor idea. group all Unofficial parts in "Unofficial" group like
> > "brick" and "plate" type of group.
>
> That's a good idea, but it requires editing *all* of the files to be
> released. The idea of an unofficial release is that it's quick'n'dirty - • as
> little work as possible. Processing a large number files, even if it is
> just a minor change, takes some time.
>
> Steve
>
|
|
| |
HeeHeee!
I have great faith in Tim that one day LDraw will become an
open project, but I don't think it has ever been one in the
past! :)
As soon as the parts library is opened up, I promise
I'll check it all into Sourceforge.org, so one can use industry-
standard tools like CVS to update parts and see what is new,
check in bug fixes (if permissions allow), record versioning
information, etc.
-gyug
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> ">It seems to me that LDraw has become a project of secrecy and inside
> work. When did it stop being an "open" project? When did discussions
> concerning LDraw cease to be done in the open? I think I missed this.
>
|
|
| |
"Paul Gyugyi" <paul@gyugyi.com> writes:
> I have great faith in Tim that one day LDraw will become an open
> project, but I don't think it has ever been one in the past! :)
This sounds almost like communistic ideology: For the project to
ultimately become open, it must first become more closed for a while!
;-)
> As soon as the parts library is opened up, I promise I'll check it
> all into Sourceforge.org, so one can use industry- standard tools
> like CVS to update parts and see what is new, check in bug fixes
> (if permissions allow), record versioning information, etc.
That's undoubtedly an interesting idea.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Paul Gyugyi wrote:
> As soon as the parts library is opened up, I promise
> I'll check it all into Sourceforge.org, so one can use industry-
> standard tools like CVS to update parts and see what is new,
> check in bug fixes (if permissions allow), record versioning
> information, etc.
Paul,
I don't know if you saw earlier messages about the Part Tracker, but there
was some discussion about whether or not we could use CVS as a backend to
an automated system. What do you think?
There are a number of features we need that (I think) CVS does not offer
'out of the box'. These are:
1. Unofficial/Official flag. When files are submitted, they are
unofficial. Once they're released, they're official. Or turn this around,
and once files are official (ie, certified), they're released.
2. Certification process. After files are submitted, they need to be
peer-reviewed. After they're peer-reviewed and OK'ed, they can be
auto-included in the next update cycle.
3. File-checking. When files are submitted, they should be auto-checked
for syntactic problems.
A couple of issues with using CVS in development with the Parts Tracker
are: (remember, I've got no experience with CVS; some of these could be
ignorance)
1. NIH. Discount this one if you want. Or call it 'unfamiliarity with CVS
causes project to be more complicated rather than less'.
2. CVS gives us functionality that is nice to have, but not required for
the PT.
STeve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> I don't know if you saw earlier messages about the Part Tracker, but there
> was some discussion about whether or not we could use CVS as a backend to
> an automated system. What do you think?
I'll go look up the discussion. I'm just getting back into the
swing of things. I think CVS would be a great way of distributing
the parts. There's clearly some managment tools needed to help
with organizing the submissions and reviews of new parts. Some
of this could be helped with CVS, but you would probably need
a front-end program. If you go to www.sourceforge.com and
search for "wincvs", you'll find the "The CvsGui project" with
MFC C++ sourcecode for calling CVS and other things that will
help tie CVS into a front-end. A popular front end, WinCVS,
should be at http://www.wincvs.org, but that site seems down today.
> There are a number of features we need that (I think) CVS does not offer
> 'out of the box'. These are:
>
> 1. Unofficial/Official flag. When files are submitted, they are
> unofficial. Once they're released, they're official. Or turn this around,
> and once files are official (ie, certified), they're released.
This could be managed with CVS branches. One branch, the unofficial,
can be updated by anyone. The other, the official, is read-only.
The LDRAW Overlord Government is responsible for approving parts,
and moves them from one branch to the other. When you get files
with CVS, it can insert comments in the files that say which
branch the files came from.
> 2. Certification process. After files are submitted, they need to be
> peer-reviewed. After they're peer-reviewed and OK'ed, they can be
> auto-included in the next update cycle.
CVS lets you find out "what is new" in a repository. For instance,
the command "cvs diff -rFEB2001_RELEASE *.dat" would show me all files
that are different since the febuary 2001 release (I assuming I tagged
the files with the FEB2001_RELEASE label at the time of the release).
I'm afraid CVS doesn't give you any additional help in organizing
peer-review, although I'll see if source-forge's bug tracking
abilities can be of use.
> 3. File-checking. When files are submitted, they should be auto-checked
> for syntactic problems.
You'll need a front-end for this.
> A couple of issues with using CVS in development with the Parts Tracker
> are: (remember, I've got no experience with CVS; some of these could be
> ignorance)
>
> 1. NIH. Discount this one if you want. Or call it 'unfamiliarity with CVS
> causes project to be more complicated rather than less'.
I've been using CVS for a few years now. It is complicated, but only
because the tasks involved are complicated. The big advantage is
being able to find out what is new and what has changed
(and who changed it).
> 2. CVS gives us functionality that is nice to have, but not required for
> the PT.
>
> STeve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Paul Gyugyi writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> > I don't know if you saw earlier messages about the Part Tracker, but there
> > was some discussion about whether or not we could use CVS as a backend to
> > an automated system. What do you think?
>
> I'll go look up the discussion. I'm just getting back into the
> swing of things. I think CVS would be a great way of distributing
> the parts. There's clearly some managment tools needed to help
> with organizing the submissions and reviews of new parts. Some
> of this could be helped with CVS, but you would probably need
> a front-end program. If you go to www.sourceforge.com and
> search for "wincvs", you'll find the "The CvsGui project" with
> MFC C++ sourcecode for calling CVS and other things that will
> help tie CVS into a front-end. A popular front end, WinCVS,
> should be at http://www.wincvs.org, but that site seems down today.
>
> > There are a number of features we need that (I think) CVS does not offer
> > 'out of the box'. These are:
> >
> > 1. Unofficial/Official flag. When files are submitted, they are
> > unofficial. Once they're released, they're official. Or turn this around,
> > and once files are official (ie, certified), they're released.
>
>
> This could be managed with CVS branches. One branch, the unofficial,
> can be updated by anyone. The other, the official, is read-only.
> The LDRAW Overlord Government is responsible for approving parts,
> and moves them from one branch to the other. When you get files
> with CVS, it can insert comments in the files that say which
> branch the files came from.
>
> > 2. Certification process. After files are submitted, they need to be
> > peer-reviewed. After they're peer-reviewed and OK'ed, they can be
> > auto-included in the next update cycle.
>
>
> CVS lets you find out "what is new" in a repository. For instance,
> the command "cvs diff -rFEB2001_RELEASE *.dat" would show me all files
> that are different since the febuary 2001 release (I assuming I tagged
> the files with the FEB2001_RELEASE label at the time of the release).
> I'm afraid CVS doesn't give you any additional help in organizing
> peer-review, although I'll see if source-forge's bug tracking
> abilities can be of use.
>
>
> > 3. File-checking. When files are submitted, they should be auto-checked
> > for syntactic problems.
>
> You'll need a front-end for this.
I think a small script running "l3p -check" called from within the CVS
commitinfo file would work great for this.
>
> > A couple of issues with using CVS in development with the Parts Tracker
> > are: (remember, I've got no experience with CVS; some of these could be
> > ignorance)
> >
> > 1. NIH. Discount this one if you want. Or call it 'unfamiliarity with CVS
> > causes project to be more complicated rather than less'.
>
> I've been using CVS for a few years now. It is complicated, but only
> because the tasks involved are complicated. The big advantage is
> being able to find out what is new and what has changed
> (and who changed it).
>
>
> > 2. CVS gives us functionality that is nice to have, but not required for
> > the PT.
> >
> > STeve
|
|
|
