Subject:
|
Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 04:21:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1263 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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 cad.dat.models.sets to the point where posting
> there is an assumed OMR submission?
Certainly!
> Is that too much?
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 to ask that
they be posted to the .dat.models group if they're not yet finished.
> At least we should impose the OMR filenaming system on the group...
Sure. Can do. Nothing about the group charters has to necessarily be
written in stone...
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
| 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)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
