 | | 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)
|
