> > If you like, you can suggest to me what I need to do to begin to
> > understand Rockbox. Should I download a prepackaged tar ball, or should
> > I use, uh, what are you using, SVN? I think a recent snapshot would be
> > adequate, since I am only reading code at this point, not writing it.
> > --Mark Allums
> I dont mean this rudely, but with what your suggesting, you really
> should have done this already. even from a quick glance at the
> settings code it would have been obvious that its generic and only
> settings which are relevant to a target are built so I'm not really
> sure what your saying.
> but anyway, its been said already, yes settings can be moved out of
> the core, no it wont be done.
It's not rude, I appreciate your candor. I still would welcome a
pointer to the best way to get started. Sometimes, the wiki and what
docs there are just contain the facts, the bare minimum amount of prose
possible. I understand this, most people would rather develop Rockbox
than write about it. Are there any areas in documentation that I could
Settings can't be moved totally out of the core, I'm sure, so no
motivation to so. Fine, I understand that. Pointless, no benefit.
Also, since what I was suggesting would work better in another language,
e.g. C++, doubly pointless to mention it again, since C++ or virtually
anything other than C is unsuitable for so many reasons.
I will not comment further on code structure. What about feature
requests/suggestions? Are the forums useful to the developers, or is
the list a reasonable/better/worse place to discuss them? Perhaps the
Thanks for reading this.
Received on 2008-05-21