| ... | ... | @@ -91,3 +91,23 @@ See [this resource](https://mifactori.de/non-commercial-is-not-open-source/) for |
|
|
|
…e.g. technical feedback like "this part could much easier be 3D printed instead of being casted" or relevant, but optional feedback on the documentation like "measure XY is missing in drawing", when there's a STEP export making the information already accessible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short answer: File upstream. You can comment that in the review (since this may relevant for other reviewers as well). More important is to report this in the original repository so the developers can take care of it. If you're struggling with it or don't find the time, CAB admins are always there to help you out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Feedback
|
|
|
|
The workflow is still under development. Frankly speaking, since it is open source, it will always be an evolutional process, which is one of the strengths of the community driven design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore we invite you to contribute in our development. First of all we would highly appreciate your feedback on all your workflow experiences. Please feel free to create as many issues as you like inside here: [CAB Feedback](https://gitlab.opensourceecology.de/verein/projekte/cab/CAB/-/milestones/4)-Area.
|
|
|
|
- What was your experience?
|
|
|
|
- What difficulties did you face?
|
|
|
|
- How did you solve them?
|
|
|
|
- Was the information provied helpfull?
|
|
|
|
- What did you miss and how would you have wished it to be?\
|
|
|
|
Be free. Be creative. We are counting on you :star:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some specific questions for our reviewers:
|
|
|
|
- what aspects did you review?
|
|
|
|
- what details did you look at?
|
|
|
|
- was it your first review?
|
|
|
|
- was the process clear to you?
|
|
|
|
- did you know what to look at, what questions to answer?
|
|
|
|
- how much time did you take?
|
|
|
|
- what (technical) specification of the review process would you wish for as guidance? |
|
|
\ No newline at end of file |
