 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | (...) Though 'OMR' would denote a submission to the OMR, etc, it would be better to have a separate group so there is absolutely no question what is a submission and what is not. All we need is for an editor to pick up a non-submitted model that (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) What's the qualitative difference between a separate group and simply putting "OMR" or "OMR Submission" in the subject line? And if there _were_ a separate OMR group, then to keep the hierarchy consistent and clean, it would have to go beneath (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | (...) cad.dat.models.omr) will (...) and it will also (...) authors include (...) search multiple (...) would be better (...) what is a (...) pick up a (...) and get the (...) need flamewars (...) Like Todd said, I think 'OMR SUBMISSION set XXXX' (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:4.2.0.58.199907...omm.com... (...) Submodels used for ease of ldrawing may certainly be inlined. Also, I would suggest that we not make the subfile structure a requirement, but a "strong (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) But having its own group, even under cad.dat.models.sets, would save model editors time by not having to browse headers. And additional features could possibly be integrated into an OMR specific group, like marking a message approved or (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | (...) probably (...) save model (...) features (...) marking a (...) free the (...) I agree that a whole new newsgroup would be best, but I was just trying to point out that it would probably work. Not a big deal either way as far as I am concerned. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) So do I. But I probably wouldn't subscribe to a sets or omr newsgroup by mail. It would work, but why not avoid possible confusion and go for 100% certainty on a completely new dedicated newsgroup? Some people might think that (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | (...) What is the point of doing a set in ldraw if it is not going to be submitted to the OMR? Since we have the models.sets, we don't need the OMR group. If I remember correctly, Todd originally made models.sets *for* the OMR (or at least that was (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | (...) from (...) now. ;) I wouldn't expect a lazy person like you to go searching for a link :) I didn't know if you might happen to know what it was off the top of your head. I know that would be asking a lot :) (...) you??......Good (...) types (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hehe :) (...) I didn't catch that thread... (...) Good, my memory isn't failing in old age ;) (...) *nark* *nark* *nark* :) -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 Get paid to surf the web! Visit: (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:4.2.0.58.199907...omm.com... (...) LDraw also runs on unix machines, which is why tarballs are needed. -John Van (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Ok, I wasn't aware of that... Cool :) -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 Get paid to surf the web! Visit: (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) Yes. Those that are non-instruction submodels but purely for ease of modelling are definitely acceptable. (I gotta remember to throw that one in the creation/submission guide) (...) Good thoughts. I would say that the models which do not (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) Searching through a potential lot of messages for the word 'OMR.' (...) But posting a submission to an OMR group and casually posting to a sets group are in fact different. One there is strict requirements for, the other there isn't. So it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) So basically no difference, really. That is, you can visually scan a hundred messages for "OMR" in a second or two -- or even faster with a script -- but where 99.9% of the time goes is verifying the quality of the model. So pulling down 5 new (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | At 10:40 PM 7/22/99 , Todd Lehman wrote: [...] snippety snip (...) Right.. (...) Now that's making sense. I was following the assumption that nothing would change on cad.dat.models.sets and OMR submissions would be *allowed* there. Could we change (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Certainly! (...) Heck, I sure don't think so. The .dat.models.sets group was intended to be a serious thing. The only question in my mind would be whether to allow in-progress models there (i.e., without an OMR-tagged subject line) or whether (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) Cool... (...) Ok.. (...) I think it should go to cad.dat.models for unfinished ones... (...) Ok, I was under the understanding that .cad.dat.models.sets was pretty much set and created without the OMR in mind. This works, then... -Tim <>< (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) IIRC, there wasn't any "OMR" at that point...but they both have the same exact underlying philosophy -- capturing a collection of quality models. I always planned to point to the models from the Pause-DB at some point... From April 3: (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) Ok... BTW, what does IIRC mean?? -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 Get paid to surf the web! Visit: (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | I believe IIRC stands for If I Remember Correctly. IIDRC :) please do correct me. Ryan ***...*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***...*** (...) was pretty much (...) then... (...) have the same (...) quality models. (...) some point... (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
