Subject:
|
Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:35:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5542 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Jim DeVona wrote:
> 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 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.
> 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?
More likely, it'd be a novote because the ampersand got left out of '4 & 1/2'.
But really, I don't see the issues with this header as a reason to novote the
review.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
| (...) 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 (...) (16 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
