Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Rockbox 2.5.1 for Archos Machines Updated

Re: Rockbox 2.5.1 for Archos Machines Updated

From: Tom Cole <tcole_at_xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:17:14 +1300

So the "rules" have evaporated into thin air?

They are not written?
In any event, they do not cover hosting builds on the wiki?
They have not been communicated to me at any time?

Look, I don't mind that the developers wish me to host the build
elsewhere. That's understandable. I've appreciated that they have
allowed me to use the wiki for so long.

If you'd just asked me nicely to find another hosting site and move it
off to conform with the way other unofficial builds are handled, that
would have been fine.

It's the way it was done, by inventing a lot of fictitious nonsense
about support and how the build was supposed to be just a bug fix, etc.
All absolute rubbish.

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:07:37 -0600, "Paul Bludgeon"
<paulthenerd_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>Firstly: Just because a rule is not written down, does not mean it does not
>exist. If you'd like, we can write out a copy of the rules. Will that
>magically change your stance on them, or will you then argue that you should
>be grandfathered in because they were put on paper after your conflict with
>them?
>
>Secondly: There is no explicit rule that says your build cannot be hosted on
>the wiki. But there is also no explicit rule that says it can. As you may
>have noticed, several developers seem to be in agreement on this topic. The
>build isn't what it once was, and should be treated as the other unsupported
>builds. Again, why should your build receive special treatment? Things
>change, and the situation has changed through your actions. I don't
>understand why you're making such a fuss over this. Honestly, is it such an
>imposition to suggest that you find your own hosting for the files?
>
>Please, honestly, explain exactly why you've taken this so personally when
>all it was was a statement that your build should follow the same conditions
>as other unsupported builds. You said it doesn't seem to be applicable here.
>Why does your build not qualify as an unsupported build, and is immune to
>that application?
>
>Perhaps a clarification of your full reasoning why this whole topic is
>invalid might shed some light onto why there's a conflict. But please avoid
>arguments such as "They told me I could in the past" because the situation
>*has* changed, and even if it hasn't, a statement in the past such as that
>is not binding in perpetuity. State what merit of your build makes it either
>immune to the guidelines, or not an 'unsupported build'.
Received on 2007-01-07


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa