 | | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I think something like this (or just releasing unused primitives) would be useful. There is a clear advantage to "locking in" primitives: they are designed to be used by multiple authors; if they are not properly examined and said to be good, (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I'm opposed to the [x] number of votes equals an admin vote for a couple of reasons: - I envision a group of reviewers getting together the push a few low quality or controversial parts through at the last minute. It really wouldn't be that (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. First of all, to my mind, the number of files processed and released has no bearing on the issue I raised, that there are *several* files that have been sitting on the Parts Tracker for *well* over a year (almost *two* (...) (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) But how can you certify a part that uses subparts, if the subparts might change? Maybe the orientation of the file will change, and then the parent part would have to be modified? Or am I missing something? (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
In general, I agree with Orion that having the parts tracker is much better than not having it, and that the main problem is that there are too few active reviewers. Just as a reminder to those reviewers out there, look at the parts queue, which (...) (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
