 | | Re: [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
|
(...) Ooo, I didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing it out. (...) Is it better now? (URL) Now, we just need a "Part Author's Guide to BFC Compliance" page... Steve (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
|
Based on this FAQ, I get the notion that BFC is required not optional. Maybe a rewording is in order. Something like: What should I look for when I review a part? . . . . Check the Part for correct BFC (if the part is intended to be BFC complient) (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
|
(...) I wonder. . .would it be helpful, or simply more confusing, to introduce more "levels" of reviewers? Currently a part requires two votes from regular users plus one from an admin user (which is currently just Steve Bliss, yes?). I think things (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers...
|
|
(...) I certainly *hope* not! ;-) I was just saying, hey, we got this here situation... Any ideas on how to expedite the resolution? Thanks, Franklin (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think so, too. (...) If it's alright with Damien, I will add it. (...) I just put one together earlier today. (URL). Steve (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
