| |
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
|
|
| |
"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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
>
|
|
|
