| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Franklin W. Cain wrote:
> (This is a copy of my reply to Steve...)
I'm only replying here. I'm going to post two replies, one addressing
the current issue, the second to address Franklin's charges against me.
> As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I wanted to fix this problem with
> the mis-match of the pattern numbers. As I mentioned to you on several
> occasions, I am the type of person, who, when he makes a mistake, *cannot* rest
> until I have solved what mistake I've made, and letting the face file go out
> with a mis-matched pattern number was such a mistake.
I understand your position. I also pointed out to you that 'fixing'
this problem would cause other problems. If fixing one 'mistake' causes
more problems, what have we gained?
BTW, releasing the Gasgano face as 3626bs4.dat will *not* fix the new
problem, it just causes yet another problem. Any existing references to
3626bps4.dat would now be *broken*, because they would be references to
a face for an old guy with a beard, not an alien with a strange
expression. The reason we use "~moved to" files is to avoid this
breakage. Releasing a new part instead of a "~moved to" just compounds
the situation.
> I understand your decision, but I cannot agree with it, for this reason: You
> *asked* that I refrain from doing this, with the *implied* promise of help in
> getting this done yourself. Please re-read your public post on LUGNet, and try
> to see how that post looked to me. If this was supposed to be a *policy
> change*, it should have *clearly* stated such.
There was no policy change, it was a statement of the current policy. I
did not imply any 'promise of help', I'm not seeing how you infer that.
I simply wrote that the proper way to get files renumbered is to send me
an email (as opposed to playing games with the Parts Tracker). In this
specific case, I disagreed with your request, and declined it. In more
detail, I had already considered this situation *before* you emailed
your request to me, and made a decision about what to do; I decided to
keep the files as they are.
> I hereby *contest* your action; I hereby appeal to Tim and Jacob to reverse
> this action of yours.
Err, ok. It'd be really nice if we had the 'formal organization' thing
right about now, so we'd have a chance of having a procedure to follow.
For now, I think our best shot is to play nice and work things out.
[snipped some mostly off-topic parts]
> So, with this background, when I saw your *request*, I said, "OK, he wants to
> finish fixing the SW mis-matches in an 'official' manner, so I'll try it his
> way", whereupon, you refused, which I couldn't help but see as you going back
> on your word.
I'm sorry; I thought I was pretty clear when I wrote:
> > Please do *not* attempt to 'rename' files on the Parts Tracker. <<
Is there any room for misunderstanding in that sentence?
> I do not apologize for my actions; I still see them as justified. I do,
> however, deeply regret any hard feelings that I may have caused, as well as any
> extra work for you. But, when I see something that *needs* to be done, and if
> I don't see someone else doing what needs to be done, I *have* to step in, if I
> can fix it by my actions. I've always been this way.
I'm not looking for an apology. I am looking to see that you understand
the way the PT system is *supposed* to work, and a willingness to work
within that system.
Here's the short[1] version: we want to avoid having people replace
existing parts with new parts. This could happen if someone submits a
file with the same filename as a previous file. The PT could be
configured to not let anyone submit new versions of parts, or to require
that all file submissions be approved by someone else. This would be
prohibitively expensive, in terms of the time it would take to approve
new submissions. Instead, we have a (somewhat kludgy) system where any
authorized author can submit new parts, and if a part is already in the
unofficial library, any author can submit a new version of the file.
This system leaves a hole: the 'new version' of a file can be
*anything*, there's no check that it's actually a new version of the
previous file (how would we check that?).
The Parts Tracker requires a fair amount of trust between all users. I
feel that you have abused this trust, especially since I warned you
about not messing with files this way, just two days ago.
--
Steve
1) Well, sort of short.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: rebuttal...
|
| Since I was appealed to in Franklin's email and post, I am adding my comments in reply to some of the posts here. Steve knows this, but it might not be public knowledge -- I do not get involved in the trenches when it comes to parts. Steve has (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | rebuttal...
|
| (This is a copy of my reply to Steve...) Steve, As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I wanted to fix this problem with the mis-match of the pattern numbers. As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I am the type of person, who, when he (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
