Subject:
|
Re: The future of LDraw?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:23:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
22450 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
>
> > The library has a host of annoying
> > errors (such as pairs of parts that have the wrong part numbers, but have to
> > stay that way for backward compatibility) that are really locked in, because of
> > that issue. In a way, the project is a bit of a victim of its own success.
First, let me make it clear that I am not a supporter of this policy (the fact
that I have to write "policy" makes me feel a tad ill, to be honest). I was
reporting, not defending.
You quoted the most relevant portion of what I wrote. "The project is [...] a
victim of its own success." If we could start NOW with a new official release,
I'd be much happier, personally.
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> How widespread a problem is that, though? I know that some parts do indeed have
> two numbers, but this would seem a glitch that should have been resolved eight
> or more years ago, no? I mean, when you can turn a brick over and say "Yep,
> it's a 3001," I don't see how it can continue to be an issue.
>
> Granted, the embossed number may not always be clear, and for all I know LEGO
> may change the numbers from time to time (or not--I have no idea). But even so
> this would seem like a minor annoyance rather than an issue to dictate policy.
I think the example I have in mind is a little bit different from what you're
talking about.
Start here:
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2790
then go here:
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2791
The first I linked? That's LEGO Design 2791. The second? LEGO design 2790.
2792 is correct: http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2792
I'm PRETTY sure this is an issue that dates back to James' time. I won't go
into specifics, but obviously the right numbers were provided, but they were
miscommunicated somewhere along the way, and the first two had their numbers
reversed. [to be honest, James was pretty willing to guess at certain logical
numberings, and many turned out to be "off" in retrospect. Still, we all did
the best we could with the information at hand...]
> For that matter, why is backwards-compatibility such a big deal? In this thread
> it's been stated that LEdit doesn't support LDConfig colors, so why should a
> "wrong" part number be maintained, rather than replacing it with a simple
> ~~MOVED TO statement or deleting it from the library altogether?
By the time I spotted it and reported it (last year or so? Maybe 2 years
back?), there were LOTS and LOTS of people who had used these parts. So they
were now "locked" in to LDRAW with those numbers.
As a fix, we now have shortcuts 2790a and 2791a, which have the right numbering,
and are ~moved to files that (literally) cross reference the originals.
Not the way I would have run it personally, but then I wouldn't have a very good
answer for the (rather sprawling) user-base who would now be pretty unhappy
about their now "broken" files (I'm speaking generally, not necessarily about
these two parts specifically -- see my postscript below).
-- joshuaD
P.S. These two parts (not available from TLG for years now) are admittedly not
at the nexus of the LEGO parts database; they were simply the first concrete
example of this that jumped to mind; though I did just catch a day ago two
TECHNIC panels that had been reverse-numbered on the parts tracker. Thanks to
the policy, these were caught before release; despite having several "yes" votes
because they are otherwise stellar parts. It was chance, though, I just happened
to need images for those parts at this particular spot in time. :-/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) How widespread a problem is that, though? I know that some parts do indeed have two numbers, but this would seem a glitch that should have been resolved eight or more years ago, no? I mean, when you can turn a brick over and say "Yep, it's a (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
