Subject:
|
Parts Maintenance Idea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:16:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
758 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm not sure this idea has merit, it might be viewed as unnecessary or
overkill. It'd definitely be one more detail to deal with in parts updates.
Should we start adding maintenance comments when parts are renumbered, renamed
or corrected? These would be one-line comments like:
0 update 99-02 part moved from 999.dat to 70000.dat
0 update 99-02 part correct by author
These comments would be added consectutively after the 0 Official L-CAD Update
line. Whoever changes the part would be responsible for adding the
documentation line. Stub-files (for the old number when a part is moved)
would not have these lines.
This kind of thing is fairly standard practice in software development, and is
close to Todd's suggestion for official model headers. Most parts would never
get any of these entries.
Is this a good idea, bad idea, or what?
Steve
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
| How do you see this information being used? -John Van Steve Bliss wrote in message ... (...) renamed (...) Update (...) is (...) never (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
| Steve Bliss (blisses@worldnet.att.net) wrote: [ about adding maintenance information to the parts files ] (...) I think it is a good idea. Information about which names the file has had in the past will be useful for updating old models, and the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
| On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:16:53 GMT, "Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Sorry to follow-up on my own message, but would this format be acceptable to everyone: 0 1999-01-01 SEB Minor corrections I think that date format will be (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
