Subject:
|
Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:25:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
849 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> At 09:10 AM 7/22/99 , John VanZwieten wrote:
> > We might as well use models.sets for this, and just have authors include
> > "OMR" in the subject header. This will avoid the confusion
> > that would come with two sets groups, and avoid having to search multiple
> > groups to find a specific model.
>
> 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 he/she desperately wants for the OMR and get the
> author to yell at him. I know it sounds silly, but we don't need flamewars
> over a model repository.
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 .dat.models.sets for
purposes of searching, browsing, and general organizational issues.
In that scenario, it's conceivable that people would crosspost to
.dat.models.sets and .dat.models.sets.omr unnecessarily.
I gotta say, I like John's suggestion a lot, and I don't see how a separate
OMR group really buys anything.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
| (...) 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)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
