 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I'm not understanding here. The parts are available in file form in a some cluster in some repository somewhere, yes? Publishing them, even in an unofficial process, would simply consist of putting them on a server. There would be little-to-no (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GCMIxI.BvL@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) Just sent another email to a few people about this. I hope there'll be some progress. -Tim (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chuck Sommerville" <chucks@he.net> wrote in message news:GCMILA.AwH@lugnet.com... (...) I've been pushing for this inside for quite some time, with little response. Even splitting up the work for a big update among some of us who discuss LDraw.org (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Perhaps we could break the job into smaller chunks, like maybe 20 parts a week to relieve the pipeline pressure. -Chuck (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what, hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified? Give me unofficial (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Problems with reaching www.ldraw.org
|
|
Several people have in the last year reported problems with getting access to www.ldraw.org. The reason for this problem appears to be that the default "time-to-live" (TTL) for TCP packets is too low. I have now recieved confirmation that this is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
