To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 2611
2610  |  2612
Subject: 
Re: Bugs with the Parts Tracker
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:16:29 GMT
Viewed: 
467 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Franklin W. Cain wrote:
Here's a good example of why the current nomenclature is messed up
(in my humble, yet aggressively vociferous, opinion).

http://www.ldraw.org//cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/30375csd.dat

This new file does not -- repeat ***NOT*** -- need any unofficial
parts, and yet it says "UNCERTIFIED FILES" instead of "NEEDS VOTES/
ADMIN REVIEW".

First off, a bigger issue with this file is that it is a model, not a part.  I
feel it goes beyond the idea of a shortcut, or complete assembly.

However, to your point.  This file uses *3* unofficial files.  Yes, they are
updates of already-official files, but they are still unofficial.  I will
totally agree that -- in this specific case -- the unofficialness of the
sub-files doesn't affect the parent file.  That's not a generally-true
statement.  We sometimes update official files in ways that change the file
considerably.  So I feel it's reasonable for the PT to handle this situation the
way it does.

Steve



Message is in Reply To:
  Bugs with the Parts Tracker
 
[emphasis Franklin's] (...) Here's a good example of why the current nomenclature is messed up (in my humble, yet aggressively vociferous, opinion). (URL) new file does not -- repeat ***NOT*** -- need any unofficial parts, and yet it says (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

24 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR