Subject:
|
Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:40:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1369 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> At 01:25 PM 7/22/99 , Todd Lehman wrote:
> > What's the qualitative difference between a separate group and simply
> > putting "OMR" or "OMR Submission" in the subject line?
>
> Searching through a potential lot of messages for the word 'OMR.'
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 models some day and checking them takes 35
minutes versus 35 minutes and 5 seconds. That's not a real qualitative
difference, is it?
> But posting a submission to an OMR group and casually posting to a sets
> group are in fact different.
Hmm. Help me out here. Now why on earth would anyone ever post *casually*
to the .dat.models.sets group (unless they've made a mistake)? (Or unless
the .dat.models.sets group is broken in the way it's set up?)
Unlike the plain .dat.models group, which is for just about anything under
the sun, the .dat.models.sets group is very serious-natured in origin, only
to be used for LEGO sets.
> One there is strict requirements for, the other there isn't.
The .dat.models.sets group has always been for collecting unofficial
renderings of official LEGO sets in LDraw DAT format...(presumably high-
quality renderings and not hacks). The only thing missing from its charter
is something pointing to a set of rules (or strict requirements) to govern
what's acceptable and what's unacceptable, and that was never given because
there wasn't anything at the time -- better to let it evolve and put it
into place after more is known. So if there's now a document specifying
a workable set of rules/requirements for LEGO-set models, then let's point
people to that from the .dat.models.sets group. There's really no need to
create another group just to get tighter restrictions...
> So it would make more sense to not allow them to crosspost, and have them
> post two separate messages.
Heh. Well, requiring two separate messages would be even more ridiculous
than allowing crossposting.
If a .dat.models.sets.omr group existed, then the first thing I'd do with
the .dat.models.sets group is destroy it because it would no longer be
needed. Then I'd rename .dat.models.sets.omr to .dat.model.sets, because
there'd be a useless gap.
In other words, if the problem is that .cad.models.sets isn't "strict"
enough in its rules about what to post there, then let's simply fix the
.cad.models.set group rather than creating a parallel one.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
| (...) 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)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
