 | | Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
LSC has decided to do away with the requirement to transfer dithered color elements to dedicated subfiles. This was required due to a limitation in the original LDRAW.EXE. Due to the belief that James would have eventually fixed this problem and the (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) I'm confused. Is this a change to the current LDraw.org file specifications (which I thought was 0.23) or part of the next LDraw.org file spec (which I thought was going to be 1.0)? The spec published on LDraw.org (URL) is not numbered at all) (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
Question: what to do with 'hold' votes based upon the old policy? Good work! Jan Folkersma (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) It's a change to the acceptance criteria for the official library, which is somewhat stricter than the file spec. For example, 0 WRITE meta commands are legal in regular LDraw files but not in official library parts. -Orion (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) Are there any holds based on this? Presumably we can just resubmit these parts to reset the votes. -Orion (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
yes, mine: (URL) I guess I'll have to go through the hassle of re-submitting this and on the way make a subpart of the pattern.... *sigh* :) thx! (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) Resubmitting (unchanged) files to simply clear away holds is *not* an approved practice for the PT. I'm not saying it isn't justified in this case, but it's not generally the way to operate - it undermines the the system. The more appropriate (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) Just to be clear - you do not have to make a subpart of the pattern; that's the change in policy. Steve (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
I'll resubmit the part unchanged, if your hold vote is not deleted by midnight CET... (URL) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) See? Wasn't that easy? :) Steve (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) Hard core reviewers know this already, of course, but those of us who don't review as much can use this link (URL) to find reviews they've done, including all the holds, so they can see if they are holding anything for dithering... (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) To be honest, I suspect that if you aren't a hard-core reviewer, you're probably not holding anything due to dithering. Maybe I'm just being cynical, though. --Travis Cobbs (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) Maybe. I think I was in the past and I wanted to go check that I wasn't, so I thought I'd post the link, just in case. (19 years ago, 4-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy regarding the subfiling of dithered colors
|
|
(...) many, many thx to the LSC for getting the job done so quickly :-)))) w. (URL) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
