 | | Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
There are some files on the Parts Tracker that have been sitting there for quite some time (well over a year). Here's just a small group... These Roadsigns were initially uploaded in October 2001: (URL) their subfiles were not uploaded until (...) (21 years ago, 26-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I have a couple of thought on this: 1.) The numbers don't support your claims. In 2002, the first full year of the PT, we released over 800 files, over 500 of which were new parts, this is more than the years 1998, 1999, and 2000 combined. Not (...) (21 years ago, 26-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) snip (...) I couldn't agrre with this more. Having the parts tracker allows users access to a greater number of parts than ever before. Using these parts becomes stricly the user's decision and therefore risk. I'm sure there are those people (...) (21 years ago, 27-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
In general, I agree with Orion that having the parts tracker is much better than not having it, and that the main problem is that there are too few active reviewers. Just as a reminder to those reviewers out there, look at the parts queue, which (...) (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) But how can you certify a part that uses subparts, if the subparts might change? Maybe the orientation of the file will change, and then the parent part would have to be modified? Or am I missing something? (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. First of all, to my mind, the number of files processed and released has no bearing on the issue I raised, that there are *several* files that have been sitting on the Parts Tracker for *well* over a year (almost *two* (...) (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I'm opposed to the [x] number of votes equals an admin vote for a couple of reasons: - I envision a group of reviewers getting together the push a few low quality or controversial parts through at the last minute. It really wouldn't be that (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I think something like this (or just releasing unused primitives) would be useful. There is a clear advantage to "locking in" primitives: they are designed to be used by multiple authors; if they are not properly examined and said to be good, (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I agree that the way subfiles are handled is a bit klunky, but I can't think of a better way to handle them. (...) Yes, I think that we should shift away from holding unused primitives. A simple novote would suffice or maybe a "Certified but (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) For how long? A year? *Two*? I've *already* waited that long for some of the files on the PT. How much longer should I be asked to wait before others agree with me that there *is* a problem? Part of the reason I cannot let go of this, is (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) THANK YOU!!! I've been arguing this very point (mostly off-list) with Steve for the better part of three years now! Pummelling the deceased equine, Franklin (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) FWIW, I agree with this. Though I am a parts reviewer, I don't have a terribly extensive collection of pieces to compare the LDraw ones with. And the Real World doesn't leave much time to review parts! --Ryan (explaining his credentials to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) There may be merit in somehow boosting the position of the subfiles themselves in the list (if it's true that people only work on the highest listed items and ignore the bottom stuff... I know it's true for me). Perhaps the more parts use an (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Bugs with the Parts Tracker
|
|
[emphasis Franklin's] (...) Here's a good example of why the current nomenclature is messed up (in my humble, yet aggressively vociferous, opinion). (URL) new file does not -- repeat ***NOT*** -- need any unofficial parts, and yet it says (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Shouldn't subfiles sort *before* any part that actually uses them? Ie. no use certifying the part unless the subfiles are done first. -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) No, that's a very good point. You're correct, that the subparts have to be certified first. I was really trying to advocate changing just the sort order of the parts tracker list (so that parts at the bottom of the page don't get ignored), not (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I think that would be nice but I am thinking they don't seem to, even though they do (URL) and you'll see the first part with uncertified subfiles is below at least some of the subfiles it contains. Yet it's hard to tell. I can't find the (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
The hotlist is here: (URL) argue that IT ought to have uncertified subparts weighed a bit higher, I guess. (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Certainly. Jacob (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Make deals with people. Trade reviews - you'll look at their files (and offer honest reviews) if they'll look at yours. (...) I'm sorry you've gotten that feeling. My feeling is that the current system gives a lot *more* power to the standard (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) OK, so let's figure out a better sort order. The possible 'statuses' for files are: - Certified! - Needs Admin review - Needs more votes - Subfiles aren't certified - Hold My thinking when I constructed the list and the sorting was: - Keep the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Bugs with the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) First off, a bigger issue with this file is that it is a model, not a part. I feel it goes beyond the idea of a shortcut, or complete assembly. However, to your point. This file uses *3* unofficial files. Yes, they are updates of (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I like this idea. It solve the perceived de-emphasis on [art with uncertified subparts. (...) I think the parts list should list everything currently on the PT. This way I can find a subfile I may have missed or wasn't included in a model I (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) OK, when I get time, I'll give that a try. I can also add an option to the page to hide certified and needs-admin files. That will cut down on the amount of noise on the page. Steve (21 years ago, 11-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
