 | | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) I dont mean where there are 2 parts that are identical. I mean that if 2 different authors have both used, say, x123.dat for 2 totally different parts.. In that case, one of them will be renamed to something else anyway when it all becomes (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
"Jonathan Wilson" <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message news:3AF0F252.79A88B....com.au... (...) another part (...) them will (...) of them (...) That would be a bit confusing, and if any beginners loaded the unofficial parts (you just know it's (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think we should settle for mpd. Let's not bring another extention into this to cause even more confusion. One can always use .mpd on an LDraw file, even if it does not contain any "FILE" keywords, right? So there are no problems related to (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Does this mean that if there are 2 parts called x530.dat that only one of them will be released? I hope that you would have the sense to take the few minutes to assign one of them to an unused x number :) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:k3u0ftckudqbaaf...4ax.com... (...) attached (...) I've been a proponent of .ldr whenever it has come up. I like that, and the other extensions you propose. -Tim (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) How about these: ldr - LDraw (dat) files mpd - Multi-Part lDraw files ldl - files with LDLite language extensions lds - LDScript files mlc - files with MLCad language extensions Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Erg. The .DAT extension is pretty much needed by all tools in use. And the original tools are still used quite a bit, especially in cases where tool flexability is more important than a GUI. (i.e. I still use LEdit to model tank treads, since (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you could use .mpd Many of the tools already accept this extension, and I believe (correct me if I am wrong someone) that you can rename your model files, and any model files you download, to use this extension. Of course parts and (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Proposal
|
|
I've got a bit of a problem with the LDraw derived software. I love the tools I use. My problem is with the unfortunate choice of filename extension. When LDraw/LEdit were written, it didn't really matter much. However, nowadays file (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Argh, I remembered about those, and still didn't kill the old files. Thanks for pointing this out. Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Actually, much of the functionality is in the prototype. The major missing pieces are: 1. Unofficial/ad-hoc part downloading 2. Release packaging 3. Administrator override of author/reviewer functions (ie, the admin can perform any function) (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Watch out here, Franklin submitted the SW heads twice, once without the P and a three digit pattern number, then he resent them with the two letter pattern code. Maybe the non-P parts should be ignored? Dan (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
I got a question in email, and I thought the answer would be of general interest. The question: (...) The answer: In short, very loose form, the main workflow is: Process 1: Author uploads file -> Reviewers check out file -> Reviewers check/certify (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
Bravo! -Chuck (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
I am working on an 'unofficial update' page. Just to have a handle for it, I'm labeling it 'update 2001-01', although after update 2001-02, the unofficial update will go away, cease to exist, become as though it never was. Some things that I am (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Paul, I don't know if you saw earlier messages about the Part Tracker, but there was some discussion about whether or not we could use CVS as a backend to an automated system. What do you think? There are a number of features we need that (I (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) This "problem" seems to be quite familiar to a lot of us ;-) (...) (d) I looked at it, but it was practically only GUI stuff without the necessary functionality, and I'm not the right guy to comment on GUIs... (...) Yes, that would have been (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Right now, it's a monolithic project; there hasn't been any segmentation of tasks. That's mostly my fault; I haven't reviewed the progress Dan has made, so I can't say where there's a need for work. It's also an artifact of not having a good (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This sounds almost like communistic ideology: For the project to ultimately become open, it must first become more closed for a while! ;-) (...) That's undoubtedly an interesting idea. Fredrik (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
HeeHeee! I have great faith in Tim that one day LDraw will become an open project, but I don't think it has ever been one in the past! :) As soon as the parts library is opened up, I promise I'll check it all into Sourceforge.org, so one can use (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Email me with some things that need to be done and I let you know what I can do. Paul (I have been busy updating some of the parts I have receintly "finished" also currently reworking the aquazone propellor) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
Just use a script to do that or even a small program, I don't think you need to manually change each file. Leonardo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> To: <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>; (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) That's a good idea, but it requires editing *all* of the files to be released. The idea of an unofficial release is that it's quick'n'dirty - as little work as possible. Processing a large number files, even if it is just a minor change, takes (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
how about making all unofficial parts go to "unofficial" group like bricks and plates? -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCo1LK.Gpx@lugnet.com... (...) have (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
HMM a minor idea. group all Unofficial parts in "Unofficial" group like "brick" and "plate" type of group. -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:p61uetc27fg7opi...4ax.com... (...) I think I see it now. As far as broken models go, we don't want that. I have had a couple of those, and that's frustrating. I got your message in this (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
Well, sort of. Here's more of the story: I asked Dan Boger if he could help with developing the new automated Parts Tracker. He's been working on it, as he's had time, for awhile now. Unfortunately, he doesn't really have any time to put into it, (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I think I can use my part-voting-preparation utilities to generate a webpage like the ones we use for voting. So people could check out what the unofficial parts are, and either download them all in one shot, or just grab what they want. Steve (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I think Chris is right. It will be challenging to disclaim an unofficial update in a way that nobody will get upset later. When we do officialize the pieces, there will be orientation changes, and different part numbers with no forwarding (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) The problem I see with releasing the current unofficial parts in a single download is that it's going to make it harder for anyone who wants to help out in checking individual parts - they're going to have to download a large ZIP file of parts (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Well tell me then. Larry. How hard is it to just zip up the parts that have already been submitted, and why? Are they all not sitting in a directory somewhere on someone's hard drive? Or are they really scattered in an ad-hoc fashion? Trust (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Do you really think this is a 10 minute job? If so you must really have a low opinion of the gang, then, that they would hold out on you to save a mere 10 minutes of their time. I hope that's not the case, but rather that you're just really (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Zipping up the parts already collected: 5 minutes Writing the disclaimer: 2 minutes Uploading zipfile and disclaimer to LDRAW.ORG: 3 minutes Catching the warm glow as the parts preview is released: Priceless. For the really big tasks there's a (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jeremy! Who do you think would be doing a significant portion (hopefully not all, but non zero) of the packaging task? ++Lar (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Let's not reinvent the wheel. This process is already largely done, I would think, as part of the new parts update system now in development. The interim solution needs to be quick & easy for the implementors. Cheers, - jproat (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Thank you Fredrik, for so succinctly expressing what I was feeling. I was building up a lot of frustration because I felt I had to make a loud noise in order to be heard. (...) I think the discussions should still be in the open. No consensus (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him working on it, it's gonna be good. Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrd1yq98itn.fsf....uio.no... (...) Its not a matter of hiding the work, see below. (...) This is the case. Newsgroup discussions get noisy - people tend to have long drawn out (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com... (...) Disagree. We package the parts and put a whoppin disclaimer on them. They are not official, just compiled and made easily available. We make it clear that (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com... (...) I've only done one part so far and I've had just 4 comments (1 on an "almost done it" post, 2 on a "done it but no optional lines yet", and 1 by private (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
