I still think it'd be fair to make H100 the only _new_ release target for
the time being. I mean the 3.0 code will be compileable for H300, and we can
even make a 3.0 binary available for it, but calling it a "release" is like
a stamp of approval, and it just doesn't seem right (in my opinion, of
course) to release it with that type of bug regardless of how little or much
it impeded use.
There are _many_ people waiting for it to be "released" for H300 to use it,
and if we say this is the release version, many people will not read
anything else, and when they find the battery life poor expect that we've
either given up on it, or declared it impossible to improve beyond this
point and give up on using Rockbox.
Many users don't read information on our site, or release notes, or
anything, and I feel they could very easily make the wrong assumptions or
become misinformed because of this, and it's much easier to simply say
"3.0is officially for <Archos targets> and iRiver H1xx" then when the
resolved, either back the solution into the 3.0 code for that one problem,
or simply include H300 in whatever release is after that fix.
On 5/31/06, Christi Alice Scarborough <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote:
> > Mike Holden wrote:
> >> For me, the battery life is a non-issue and I use my unit a lot. It
> >> always be improved on of course, but it's plenty good enough to release
> >> IMHO.
> > If this was a question of optimization, I would agree. In this case, it
> > is a hardware issue, where some component is drawing a lot of current,
> > most likely because of a faulty initialization/use of the hardware.
> I have to say that I think a release without this fix in place seems
> plausible to me. I think we'd need to note the outstanding issue in the
> release notes and download page, but it's not something that actually
> stops H300 Rockbox working useably, definite bug though it is. It's
> not really missing functionality so much as suboptimal operation in my
> opinion, and while obviously it'd be better not to release without a
> fix, going ahead anyway might not be so terrible.
Received on Thu Jun 1 04:21:16 2006