|
|
 | | Re: Improving the PT
|
| (...) I disagree with this idea. Fixed parts can have subtle changes to them that may affect the parent part. In other words, part fixes are essentially new parts meant to replace the old parts. -Orion (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: Improving the PT
|
| (...) I can see where you are coming from on this and do sympathise. If I were doing the coding, I'd have difficulty in justifying spending the time needed to add this extra level of complexity to the PT, when what we are seeing is a _relatively_ (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
| (...) Oooooooohhhhh... I *really* like this one... >;) (...) Interesting. (...) Make this an **option**, and I'd like it... (...) Yessssssss... Thanks, Franklin (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: Improving the PT
|
| I thought of another one, something I *know* I've mentioned before (in various discussions w/ Steve, off-line as well as here on LUGNet)... If a primitive or subfile that has *already* been released (i.e., the file is an **OFFICIAL** file), you (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
| (...) Sorry, Orion, but I wouldn't use this. If I want to communicate privately with someone, I'll use e-mail. If I don't have his e-mail address, or if I want to post a public, LEGO-related message, I'll use LUGNet. FWIW, I already have ~100kb of (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
