 | | [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
I've submitted BFC'ed versions of all the official stu*.dat files. Surprisingly, a fair number of files are still in certified status. I expected nearly everything to drop back to "uncertified subfiles". Apparently, we don't depend on studs as much (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | ldraw.org MOTM & SOTM Winner for March 2002
|
|
Hi all, If you carefully read the subject line, you may have noticed something odd. I said 'winner', not 'winners' Yep, that's right, this months awards are a sweep for just one person. Congratulations to Cale Leiphart for winning both the Model and (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Numbers Report
|
|
"(URL) (472 files) Subparts (131 files) Primitives (65 files) 48-Segment Primitives (23 files) "(URL) certified files. 124 file(s) need admin review. 398 file(s) need more votes. 0 files have uncertified subfiles. 92 held files. Total: 691 Almost (...) (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
|
(...) Maybe. It would be nice to get an initial review of parts as soon as possible after they're submitted. And there are occasionally some (fairly) obvious defects that aren't caught until late in the game. I might have recently posted about the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
|
(...) May be "beginner reviewers" is a name for people like you and me. Then may be "advanced reviewers" is just a new name for acknowledged part authors. These acknowledged part authors just do their best by creating the LDraw parts we love so (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
