 | | [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)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) [snip] This is great info/advice! Can this be included in a "reviewer FAQ"? (Is there one already?) (...) Yes, yes! Please remember that, even after a part has been certified & included in the official parts library *it can still be (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers...
|
|
(...) Ignoring the new parts which will be added in the meantime 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers...
|
|
Good statistics, just one note... (...) You should really comb through the lists, and count how many files we've released multiple times in the last 4 updates. We wouldn't want to count duplicates in the averages... Steve (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers...
|
|
Here's the current numbers from the Parts Tracker..... From the "Parts List" page: Parts (443 files) Subparts (114 files) Primitives (42 files) 48-Segment Primitives (20 files) (Total: 619) From the "Certification List" page: 20 certified files. 48 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) My hints to new and more part reviewers Because it is claimed that reviewers are highly qualified people, some potential volunteers may be intimidated. I was also at first. I am not a part author and even less a highly qualified people (in (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
|
I took the current information available from the Parts Tracker, and the recent discussions in this group, and put together a quick FAQ page about reviewing parts. Please let me know what you think! I will be happy to receive any and all Edits, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
(...) I forgot complication #3: 3. If the file you are reviewing has an embedded transparent area, you won't be able to check the BFC'ness of any surface viewed *through* the transparent area. You can fall back on viewing the part with mytest6 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think no. If it were so, it would stifle input from those who want to help, but have never (yet?) authored a part. I understand that one who is a parts author would possibly have a better eye for detail in reviewing; it would merely need to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: [snipped ludicrously useful tip for BFC checking] (...) Uh, increase the standard day to 48 hours??????? 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think "have to be" is a bit strong, however "highly recommended" would be good if you can squeeze it in there somehow 8?) I know I learnt a lot about reviewing (and authoring!) from the comments I got from other reviewers about parts I've (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
