Subject:
|
Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 08:33:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
278 times
|
| |
|
|
> I can think if a few things that might help throughput (I'm sure that most
> of these have been discussed before):
>
> 1) Create a new review attribute "compared to physical part" (which could
> apply to an admin or regular review), which certifies that the reviewer
> has the part and has actually measured it, made sure that the pattern
> matches reality, whatever. Then require that at least or two reviews have
> this attribute for the part to be certified. This a) encourages people
> who don't have the part to still go ahead and check for gaps, overlaps,
> wrong BFC, etc., secure in the knowledge that their approval will not let
> a technically proficient but *wrong* part in the library, and b)
> encourages people who *do* have the part to review it (their reviews
> become more valuable), and to not sweat the technical details if that
> would mean fewer reviews (because there are others whose contribution *is*
> to sweat the technical details).
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 so
much about parts :)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
| (...) I can think if a few things that might help throughput (I'm sure that most of these have been discussed before): 1) Create a new review attribute "compared to physical part" (which could apply to an admin or regular review), which certifies (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
