Subject:
|
Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:59:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9935 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Jim DeVona wrote:
> > 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.
Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure there even were issues with the header - I was just
looking for example reviews, and trying to figure out what purpose, if any, the
specifications play.
Jim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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. (...) (...) (18 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
|
|
|
|
