Do Not Use 'Old' in a Part Title: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Parts with 'old' in the name <code> ====================================================================== At Mon May 4 00:08:03 2009, the following review was posted: R...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Parts with 'old' in the name == | |||
< | <verbatim> | ||
====================================================================== | ====================================================================== | ||
At Mon May 4 00:08:03 2009, the following review was posted: | At Mon May 4 00:08:03 2009, the following review was posted: | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
We have followed over years now the practice of abolishing | We have followed over years now the practice of abolishing | ||
every word "Old" in the titles of parts when they get onto the Parts Tracker. I just ask to continue doing this. | every word "Old" in the titles of parts when they get onto the Parts Tracker. I just ask to continue doing this. | ||
</ | </verbatim> | ||
Revision as of 22:15, 1 January 2012
Parts with 'old' in the name
<verbatim>
==========================================================
At Mon May 4 00:08:03 2009, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Steffen Certification: hold Comments: "old" should be removed from part name. (Each part at some point in time will become "old".)
==========================================================
At Sat Dec 31 22:55:06 2011, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: timgould Certification: certify Comments: Think the old is appropriate here. Other bushes are variants of each other but this represents an old, depreciated 'standard'.
==========================================================
At Sun Jan 1 04:30:06 2012, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Steffen Certification: hold Comments: I know, but we usually do not add "old" to titles, though. The reason is that every part potentially can become "old", when something new comes out which replaces it. We describe what the part is and does, and that's it. Its age is not part of its function.
==========================================================
At Sun Jan 1 09:05:04 2012, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: timgould Certification: certify Comments: The part fits with the existing library Old Type 2. Hold is, IMO, inappropriate unless you are willing to change both the existing file and this one with a new standard. Otherwise it is just reducing approved parts for your whims.
==========================================================
At Sun Jan 1 10:30:07 2012, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: mikeheide Certification: novote Comments: I am with Steffen here. If we have another part in the library with 'old' then we should also change that parts description.
==========================================================
At Sun Jan 1 15:35:02 2012, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Steffen Certification: hold Comments: that's no whim :-) We have followed over years now the practice of abolishing every word "Old" in the titles of parts when they get onto the Parts Tracker. I just ask to continue doing this. </verbatim>