 | | Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Hmm. Let's see: - Lets authors know a file has been altered after submission. - Helps people track down part number changes, especially if another part is now using the old number. - Reduces need to overload the Author tag to give proper (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Is this done? I guess I thought that once a number is used, it's used up. How does LDAO part update function deal with this? (By the way, yet another awesome addition to LDAO's usefulness. I've just been using it a bunch to fix models I did (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) It's happened on at least one occasion. The problem is with the LDraw library, usually--a part was released with the wrong number, and there is a different part which actually should have that number. (...) AFAIK, TLG doesn't recycle numbers. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes, but I think only for _equivalent_ parts. I just discovered that there are two versions of the Street Sweeper Brush Holder (2578) - both have this number moulded on. Chris Dee (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Joshua relayed once to me some deductive evidence that TLG has recycled part numbers in at least a couple odd circumstances. For example, the 1x2 plate hinges numbered 4275 & 4276 originally had only 1 hinge finger on the male part and 2 hinge (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Right. In the LDraw parts library, these multi-version parts are (typically) designated by appending a version-letter to the part's filename. The mini-figure heads are a good example of this. 3626A.dat is the original solid-stud head. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) BTW, I wouldn't call this re-using part numbers, I'd call it making new versions of the same part. A version-number would be good, though. Steve (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Is that "street stripper brushes"? Well... One brush's owner, a brunette, is from Fennelview, Arkansas and is striving to become a high-fashion model; she *loves* dolphins, sliver-haired U.S. presidents, and baby seals -- but has mentioned (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) That makes it less frustrating? (...) The list must go on and on... :-[p How different are the two sweet streeper brushes? --Todd (25 years ago, 12-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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes, if the date format is yyyy-mm-dd. :) /Tore (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Sorry I wasn't clear enough. 0 1999-12-31 SEB Minor corrections Is that better? :) Steve (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) A couple of occasions. Not much can be done about it. It requires that any person who had used that part in a model to go back and manually update it to the correct number. (...) As far as the 3-digit (or less) numbers in LDraw goes, I try to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes. I presume it is supposed to be the ISO format (yyyy-mm-dd). (...) Not that I know of. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- LDraw FAQ: <URL:(URL) (25 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes, it is supposed to by yyyy-mm-dd. No, it isn't supposed to be an/the ISO format. I'm glad it is, though. (...) Good -- then no one will be confused. Steve (25 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes Japan does, However since it is always confusing when numbered dates are used I would suggest 1999-jan-01 which is unmistakable. (25 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Since Japan uses y-d-m, then the TLA month would be better. Steve (25 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) In lugnet.cad.dev, chris_w_dee@hotmail.com (Chris Dee) writes: (...) They are quite different. I didn't know that both had the same number, though. CHRIS: Are you certain that the housing from set XXXX has 2578 molded into it? The original, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Here, XXXX was to represent 6645 <blush>. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
Benoit: (...) I have always believed that Japan uses a year-month-day date format. Are you sure? Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- LDraw FAQ: <URL:(URL) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) I can speak on this. Japan uses either y-d-m or d-m-y in modern forms. Traditionally (and still in some traditional circles) the Year is expressed in reference to the current ruling emperor, so the year that I was there (1996) was actually (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
Sorry cancel that I didn't read it carefully enough Japan uses Year Month Day Benoit a écrit dans le message ... (...) are (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
You are both right I actually meant that, since the date expressed in the example (ISO) was year month day I wasn't carefull enough when I read the other message. I don't know of a country which uses year day month. By the way I so what your talking (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
