Subject:
|
Re: pictures at tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 May 2002 01:29:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1031 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > There are 139 subparts on the tracker now. I'd say that's a fair
> > > percentage of the 661 total files.
> >
> > The reason I suggested this is not necessarily volume, but ease - if you limit
> > images to top-level parts, all you need to do is when a part is uploaded, go
> > through your dependency list, and re-image all top-level (non sub-) parts that
> > use it. Removes the need to do anything with "make".
>
> Yeah, but that would be doing the job of make -- reinventing the wheel,
> so to speak. It should be easier to maintain a dependency file for each
> unofficial file, and let make figure out what needs to be updated when.
But we already know exactly when an image needs updating! Using make, you
still have to decide when to execute the make command, I'm saying the
obvious time to do it is when a file is submitted (update it's image and all
those which depend on it). You already have all the dependencies, and you
already know when an image needs updating, why do you need make?
> Side thought: Kyle mentioned that dat files should depend on the images
> of their subfiles. That would work, but we could also make the dat
> files be dependent on the dependency files of their subfiles. :)
>
> > > Another place that I think images would be useful is in the "required
> > > files" and "related files" lists on the detailed pages. In those lists,
> > > images for subparts and primitives would definitely be useful.
> >
> > I would think the same thing applies here - if a required file needs
> > certification, it'll need to be downloaded anyway. It should only have an image
> > if it's a part in itself. Same with related files.
>
> I figure that for any mention of a file, it will be as useful to present
> it graphically as textually.
>
> Besides, I don't want to start adding type-based processing the parts
> tracker. That's too much special code.
OK. I think I've changed my mind about this too - there's no reason *not* to
have images for all parts, and it may (at least occasionally) be useful.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: pictures at tracker
|
| (...) I have to disagree: we don't 'know' exactly when an image needs updating. We have the information needed to figure out which image(s) need updating, but it's in a form that still needs to be sorted through. Sorting through it isn't too hard, (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: pictures at tracker
|
| (...) Yeah, but that would be doing the job of make -- reinventing the wheel, so to speak. It should be easier to maintain a dependency file for each unofficial file, and let make figure out what needs to be updated when. Side thought: Kyle (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
77 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
|
|
|
|
