 | | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I mostly agree so I mostly snipped... (...) How does that help? That is, suppose it would take 40 man hours of work to resolve the bottleneck and get the new process on line and running. If that 40 hours avoids 400 or 4000 hours of user effort, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Fine, okay, you can call it what you want. The fact remains, something needs to be done. I'm making it known the only way I know how. The delay in the parts update system is becoming pretty unpopular, and it begs the question: is this being (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) It can't be "justified", but stamping one's foot isn't going to help, Jeremy, and you know that. I think what we need is an unoffical update. Package them up as unofficial and tell people to take their chances. But realise that there is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This isn't really a matter of patience; it's been far too long than it needs to be. We need a better system. In the mean-time, the factors contributing to the delay can be addressed, and quickly. e.g. What are the factors holding back the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCMJot.E07@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) Kinda unrelated statement, I intended it to reflect more the project as a whole. I think (and I accept that this will never be the case) that the whole (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
