 | | Re: Postscript output
|
|
(...) I'll second that. Moreover, the EPS and PDF output (in addition to 'plain' PostScript) apparently supported by gl2ps would also be very nice. --Tom (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) If we require (by informal convention at least) authors to have the part they author, I do think there's merit in requiring at least one (or two) reviewer(s) to have the part they author as well. So I think this is a good restriction although (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I agree that the way subfiles are handled is a bit klunky, but I can't think of a better way to handle them. (...) Yes, I think that we should shift away from holding unused primitives. A simple novote would suffice or maybe a "Certified but (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I like this, sort of. While I thinks it's a good idea, the overall effect would be to lower throughput since not everyone has an expansive LEGO collection. Isn't that part of the reason why some started using virtual LEGO in the first place? (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I can think if a few things that might help throughput (I'm sure that most of these have been discussed before): 1) Create a new review attribute "compared to physical part" (which could apply to an admin or regular review), which certifies (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
