 | | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) THANK YOU!!! I've been arguing this very point (mostly off-list) with Steve for the better part of three years now! Pummelling the deceased equine, Franklin (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | msg to "technog"...
|
|
You have a "hold" vote on this file: (URL) post an image of the gap. Thanks, Franklin (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: PT File Queue has (minor) bug
|
|
(...) Hmm... I'd better get cracking. Franklin's about to pass me up. ;-) -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | PT File Queue has (minor) bug
|
|
When I check the File Queue at the Parts Tracker: (URL) noticed that it does *not* weed out those files I've already reviewed... (... which is 390 files, so far, according to this): (URL) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) For how long? A year? *Two*? I've *already* waited that long for some of the files on the PT. How much longer should I be asked to wait before others agree with me that there *is* a problem? Part of the reason I cannot let go of this, is (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I agree here. I own a bunch of "rare" parts and could compare the ldraw parts to the real thing. But I dont know anything about the technical stuff and cant say on those. Also, I could provide comments on part names, KEYWORDS etc (since I know (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 1 October 2003
|
|
Section Totals 048 certified files. 284 files need admin review. 436 files need more votes. 563 have uncertified subfiles. 161 held files. Total Files: 1,492 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2003-10-01 - 048 / 284 / 436 / 563 / 161 (1,492) 2003-09-26 - (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) If we require (by informal convention at least) authors to have the part they author, I do think there's merit in requiring at least one (or two) reviewer(s) to have the part they author as well. So I think this is a good restriction although (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I agree that the way subfiles are handled is a bit klunky, but I can't think of a better way to handle them. (...) Yes, I think that we should shift away from holding unused primitives. A simple novote would suffice or maybe a "Certified but (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I like this, sort of. While I thinks it's a good idea, the overall effect would be to lower throughput since not everyone has an expansive LEGO collection. Isn't that part of the reason why some started using virtual LEGO in the first place? (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
