+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: General (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-12.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Tracker Discussion (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: [Solved] Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat (/thread-25939.html)
Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Orion Pobursky - 2022-01-20
These are now the oldest uncertified parts on the PT. In fact, my first part was released in update 2002-03 so it probably even predates my foray parts authoring (the first post of which is here on 14 Mar 2002). I'd like them either rebuilt or William Wood found and affirmed the CA.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Willy Tschager - 2022-01-20
It has never been released and I doubt that someone will rewrite it - at least noone did in the last 20 years.
Delete.
w.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Orion Pobursky - 2022-01-20
Well if it's non-CA we shouldn't be distributing it. So we either find the author or it gets removed.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Travis Cobbs - 2022-01-20
(2022-01-20, 4:42)Orion Pobursky Wrote: These are now the oldest uncertified parts on the PT. In fact, my first part was released in update 2002-03 so it probably even predates my foray parts authoring (the first post of which is here on 14 Mar 2002). I'd like them either rebuilt or William Wood found and affirmed the CA.
How did the files get a CA header if the author didn't affirm the CA?
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Orion Pobursky - 2022-01-21
(2022-01-20, 23:54)Travis Cobbs Wrote: How did the files get a CA header if the author didn't affirm the CA?
Unknown. I assume some quirk of the PT.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Willy Tschager - 2022-01-21
(2022-01-20, 23:54)Travis Cobbs Wrote: How did the files get a CA header if the author didn't affirm the CA?
Probably:
At Fri Nov 15 23:05:03 2013, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Steffen
It is standard procedure add that line to get rid off of all warnings. You simply don't care if the previous author has actually signed the CA 'cos all parts since 2007 have to be CA.
w.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Orion Pobursky - 2022-01-21
(2022-01-21, 7:09)Willy Tschager Wrote: Probably:
At Fri Nov 15 23:05:03 2013, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Steffen
It is standard procedure add that line to get rid off of all warnings. You simply don't care if the previous author has actually signed the CA 'cos all parts since 2007 have to be CA.
w.
I asked Chris about William. William would not have been given PT Submit or Review privileges unless he had affirmed the CA. I consider this issue closed. The parts will remain.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Willy Tschager - 2022-01-21
(2022-01-21, 14:16)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I asked Chris about William. William would not have been given PT Submit or Review privileges unless he had affirmed the CA. I consider this issue closed. The parts will remain.
William submitted the cameras long before there was any requirement for a CA and in 2003 his submission and review privileges were perfectly fine:
At Tue Nov 25 01:20:03 2003, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: wjwood
So either Chris provides the signed CA or the parts get deleted.
w.
RE: Parts 32561c01.dat and 32561c02.dat - Orion Pobursky - 2022-01-21
From Chris:
Quote:... he wouldn't have been given PTSubmit and PTReview without doing so. It is possible he had not affirmed at the time of the 2008 comments, but did so subsequently.
I take Chris at his word. This matter is closed.