Subject:
|
Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:48:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Jim DeVona wrote:
> 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
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
(Datheader). I wouldn't care about parts submitted before September 2006. It is
further my understanding that the PT is going to be re-coded to reject parts
without a proper header once the CA-library is out.
w.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
