Tore_Eriksson Wrote:
> We may be in minority, but you are not alone. IMO,
> primary focus should be on wether a part is
> correctly aligned, correct size and shape.
> Secondary, the part should have a name that the
> majority accepts and makes it easy to look up. But
> a reviewer's personal taste on maximum number of
> blank lines or what remarks should be allowed and
> how they are formatted is never an acceptable
> cause to hold a part in the Tracker.
>
> As long as the primary requirements are met (and
> not compromized!), a part can always be updated
> for better use of primitives or improved detail
> works. And the users have their official parts
> much quicker.
This discussion is as old as the library itself. The LSC has worked out specs to work around. Please read:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=3442
w.
> We may be in minority, but you are not alone. IMO,
> primary focus should be on wether a part is
> correctly aligned, correct size and shape.
> Secondary, the part should have a name that the
> majority accepts and makes it easy to look up. But
> a reviewer's personal taste on maximum number of
> blank lines or what remarks should be allowed and
> how they are formatted is never an acceptable
> cause to hold a part in the Tracker.
>
> As long as the primary requirements are met (and
> not compromized!), a part can always be updated
> for better use of primitives or improved detail
> works. And the users have their official parts
> much quicker.
This discussion is as old as the library itself. The LSC has worked out specs to work around. Please read:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=3442
w.
LEGO ergo sum