Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Standards discussion [Tir?/Data SB?]

Expand Messages
  • karianna03
    Hi all, Sorry if this is the wrong forum, I m looking over a few old bugs and some of them mention things like Re-opened because of discussion on standards .
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      Sorry if this is the wrong forum, I'm looking over a few old bugs and
      some of them mention things like "Re-opened because of discussion on
      standards". Now, this appears to be referring to LST discussions, so
      I need to know who is leadinbg this so I can assign them the bug to
      take into consideration.

      K
    • thoron-tir-gwaith@lycos.com
      Kar, Take this up, with specifics (links to trackers, etc.), over on pcgen_experimental. That s where we tackle that stuff. Assign to myself or Doug for
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 25, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Kar,

        Take this up, with specifics (links to trackers, etc.), over on pcgen_experimental. That's where we tackle that stuff. Assign to myself or Doug for comments in the trackers if you like. My old training is coming back. Just don't send me 10 trackers to comment on at once, please. :)

        Space Monkey and I head up the two 'LST Standards' design perspective teams, I guess you could say. I feel for Eddy who gets to to be in the middle of us arguing back and forth. But after time in that crucible, we get good tags like SPELLS. :)

        Tir Gwaith
        LST Chimp

        > Sorry if this is the wrong forum, I'm looking over a few old bugs and
        > some of them mention things like "Re-opened because of discussion on
        > standards". Now, this appears to be referring to LST discussions, so
        > I need to know who is leadinbg this so I can assign them the bug to
        > take into consideration.
      • Eddy Anthony
        ... The Standards do refer to LST standards and in the case of this particular tracker it has to do with naming conventions. The issue boils down to this: do
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 25, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On 8/25/05 9:30 AM, "karianna03" <karianna@...> wrote:

          > Hi all,
          >
          > Sorry if this is the wrong forum, I'm looking over a few old bugs and
          > some of them mention things like "Re-opened because of discussion on
          > standards". Now, this appears to be referring to LST discussions, so
          > I need to know who is leadinbg this so I can assign them the bug to
          > take into consideration.

          The Standards do refer to LST standards and in the case of this particular
          tracker it has to do with naming conventions.

          The issue boils down to this: do we set the standards based on the published
          names from the source or down we standardize based on PCGens current
          limitations.

          Examples of limitations are: not using dashes in names like Blind-Fighting
          because the program mistakes the dash for a math function. The tracker you
          sight is a bug where in if you have two feats like "Shadow" and "Shadow
          (TT)" only the first will be displayed, PCGen mistakenly thinks the second
          one is an instance of the first and not a completely different feat.

          I'd like to be able to use the names as published but if we do go with that
          standard it will be necessary to give bugs such as these a high priority and
          get them fixed fast.
          --
          ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
          ~ PCGen Content Silverback
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.