While in Billund we worked on Datheader's HOLD list an came up with this:
LDraw HOLD Reasons.pdf (Size: 32.25 KB / Downloads: 25)
The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.
The rest of Orion list:
is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?
w.
LDraw HOLD Reasons.pdf (Size: 32.25 KB / Downloads: 25)
The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.
The rest of Orion list:
Quote:Things that should generate a warning but not a HOLD:
- Small gaps
- Wrong KEYWORDS or CATEGORY
- Semantics issues like, this should be a subpart
- Anything that the PT Admin can fix (e.g. Header issues)
- Minor color problems
- Basically anything that can be fixed after initial release without breaking models that use the part.
is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?
w.
LEGO ergo sum