Subject:
|
Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:52:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3554 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Timothy Gould wrote:
> Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions
> so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them:
>
> Should we try to model the idealised part?
>
> Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part?
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 this thread complaining about the standard of
perfection required to get parts approved, but I haven't seen any posts arguing
that the current way is good. My personal opinion is that we should officially
sanction "(needs work)" in the title as a method of getting files into the
official library that have room for improvement, but it's not clear what what
the general consensus is.
I read the reviewing FAQ, and it definitely seems to encourage the current
practices.
--Travis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
20 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
|
|
|
|
