 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) Much as I'd like to agree on this, I don't think the fact that nobody posted back then disagreeing with my statement really counts as consensus. I pointed out the problem, but didn't ask for opinions on whether parts should be modeled that (...) (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) Heh, I think I found the (URL) ASCII art>. I coulda sworn it made it into a FAQ somewhere though. Oh well. Have fun, Don (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) T-junctions are a quality issue in part files. I don't think they should be strictly forbidden (that is, having T-junctions is not a reason to hold a part file from official release). Generally, I wouldn't even say that a part with T-junctions (...) (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) Sounds reasonable to me. Any chance a T-junctions FAQ could be created on the parts tracker reference page, and the above could make it into a policy statement in the parts review FAQ? Most of my original post here could be used as the FAQ, (...) (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
| |
