 | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) You're right MAtt, "Only the best is good enough" but "la surqualité est de la non-qualité" (overquality is non-quality) and "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (better is enemy of good). Didier (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) An excellent idea. If my vote counts for anything, I say yes. Under the Needs Work comment authors or reviews could then note specific items that need to be done such as "Needs BFC" or "Underside needs more detail" or "needs more primitives in (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) This thread also seems to have brought up another very important question: Are the current review policies too strict, preventing parts that are "good enough" from getting in to users' hands in a timely manner? I've seen a number of posts in (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) I did a quick scan of the official parts on my hard drive. The most recent one with "(needs work)" in the part title is 30375s01 (Minifig Mechanical Torso without Chest/Rib Surface (Needs Work)), and it's from the 2002-05 update. There are two (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) That is good advice because I have had more than one part I authored get held ONLY because the reviewer thought it should be BFCed when no claim was made by the part that it should be BFCed. BFCing may be a good idea, and if someone wants to (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
