 | | Re: Steering Committee Candidate Kevin Clague - backgrounder and position statement
|
|
(...) Thanks so much for your support. I must give credit where credit is due, though, and say that it was not I, but Terry Keller who picked up the ball immediately following James' death with the original Memorial site. Terry and Steve Bliss both (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) This is always a good argument against removing any syntax. But see below. (...) As is this one. But see below. (...) Not a large number in the scheme of things really. IF the change is done to parts as they are changed anyway... I guess what (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Steering Committee Candidate Kevin Clague - backgrounder and position statement
|
|
Tim, You have been the cornerstone and evangelist for Ldraw since James' untimely death. I cannot imagine the Steering Committee without you. I support your candidacy for the Steering Committee. Kevin (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) I would say that it's a good thing to leave them in. 2 reasons for this: - Once developers decide they want to support it, the implementation is aleady there. - To remove them would force all the parts that have the command to go thruogh PT (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) Thanks. What would the downside be of, over time, as parts go through review and renewal anyway, gradually discontinuing the use of this command? It is not a large number of parts that use this anyway, right? ++Lar (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
