Subject:
|
Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:58:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4959 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Jim DeVona wrote:
> > I'm looking at the "Official Library Header" specification
> > (http://www.ldraw.org/Article398.html). How strictly must currently unofficial
> > parts conform to the !LDRAW_ORG and !LICENSE lines, for example? Are those set
> > by admins once the content of a part is certified, or as a reviewer am I to
> > verify this part of the header as well?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> the new header was the result/a requirement of/for the CA conversion (Ratified
> 2006-09-08) but the PT is up since 2001. This means that you'll come across many
> parts which have been submitted earlier: My oldest is this one
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=4773 (Aug 29, 2002).
>
> I would say that it's a bit strict to hold vote a part submitted after September
> 2006 because of the header, but a correct header definitely makes life easier
> for the admins. Leaving a note like Philo does:
>
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x941.dat
>
> should be sufficient.
Hi Willy,
Thanks for the background. So, if the header just needs to be cleaned up, you
recommend novote with a note about the header format?
If I can ask for one more example, how would you respond to a header like this?
0 Car Mudguard 4 1/2 x 1 x 1
0 Name: 50947.dat
0 Author: Michael Heidemann <mikeheide@web.de>
0 Unofficial Model
0 // 2005-05-17 subfiled
As I currently understand your advice, novote to suggest !LDRAW_ORG and maybe
!HISTORY meta-commands instead of current comments?
Still just trying to get a feel for how strictly y'all adhere to specifications.
Thanks,
Jim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
| (...) If the header is the only problem, certifying is fine -- just note the issue, so the admins can clean up the header later. If it's a question of the header's content (ie, "is that the right title?", etc), then you might go for novote. (...) (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
| (...) Hi Jim, since the admins check the header and also modify them before shipping (Unofficial to Official for example) I would just "novote with comments" for NEWLY submitted parts to make the author aware of the new specs and the tools (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
| (...) Hi Jim, the new header was the result/a requirement of/for the CA conversion (Ratified 2006-09-08) but the PT is up since 2001. This means that you'll come across many parts which have been submitted earlier: My oldest is this one (URL) (Aug (...) (16 years ago, 16-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
