 | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) For starters, I recently tried to track down the BFC specification but couldn't find it (on ldraw.org or on Steve's site). Could someone post the link please? (...) If it doesn't matter from a performance perspective, I vote you kill the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: does PT FAQ cover "CMDLINE"?...
|
|
(...) Thanks! I added your writeup to the PT FAQ. Let me know if everything's OK or not. (URL) Steve (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Heh. That's not quite so far from the truth... :-/ "(URL) 117 file(s) Although this guy's giving me a run for the money. ;-) (And doing some *incredible* work, to boot!!) (URL) 72 file(s) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Well, once things settle down a bit, we'll do a release. Right now, I'm scared to check how many certified files actually are associated with non-certified files (and so would need to be held back from a release -- that's extra work for me to (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | does PT FAQ cover "CMDLINE"?...
|
|
I've had several people ask me about the CMDLINE meta-statement. Shouldn't this meta-statement be covered in the FAQ for the Parts Tracker? (...) The CMDLINE meta-statement is a way of permitting the author to *document* certain run-time commands (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Well, with the current huge number of files on the Parts Tracker, my browser is taking anywhere from 30 seconds to *two minutes* to load either the "Parts List" page or the "Certification List" page, so I'm *definitely* in favor of making a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) That's pretty much what I'm planning. I'm just not sure whether to plow ahead and finish BFC'ing *all* the primitives, or stick with what's already been submitted. :) Steve (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
"(URL) (473 files) Subparts (133 files) Primitives (85 files) 48-Segment Primitives (23 files) "(URL) certified files. 37 file(s) need admin review. 206 file(s) need more votes. 325 files have uncertified subfiles. 91 held files. Total: 714 OK, now (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) There was some discussion whether one winding was better or not. Not limited to primitives, just in general. I think I arbitrarily put in the clause about all primitives being CCW, mostly to promote consistency, but also partly to see if it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) Um... Not to stir the pot or anything but I was reading the BFC proposal on your website and noticed that the BFC specification says that all primitves must be certified CCW. Did this get revised via discussion and not updated? -Orion (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | [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)
|
