 | | Issue with some of the holds on the Parts Tracker
|
|
I am at issue with some the hold votes that have given to parts on the PT. As the certify statement says, a part is certified if it is good for general release. In other words, we're not looking for absolute perfection, we are looking for a part (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Issue with some of the holds on the Parts Tracker
|
|
Hello Orion, I think you may refer to some hold votes i did today. (...) I would never hold a part because of some bad vertex sequences only. But identical lines are a reason for doing this. Refer to the parts tracker documentation for L3P-error (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Issue with some of the holds on the Parts Tracker
|
|
This post wasn't directed at you specifically, it's been brewing for some time now. Actually, the holds you put on today were more or less justified but the hold I've seen in the past have sometime bordered on the ridiculous. -Orion (make it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Issue with some of the holds on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Hi reviewers, May be the post was also directed to me. I plainly assume some of my votes to be honest but ridiculous or arbitrary. In absence of a formal specification of what is a good part, voting is arbitrary in essence. In presence of such (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Issue with some of the holds on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Comments are always welcome over holding for insignificant errors. I try to check all the parts I've submitted at least ever couple days until certified, I really wish more part authors would check up on their parts regularly. OTOH, if you (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
