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: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

From: XavierGr <xaviergr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:03:08 +0200

Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and
> terms like this?
>

The phrase was a "tongue in cheek", that's what the smiley was about in case
someone was offended by it. I don't get where the problem is with that.

> And, as a point of interest, we're already using ~20-25% of the available
> RAM on the Cowon Coldfire-based players as it stands, binsize is not *only*
> important to the Archos players. We're also looking at players that only
> have 384kb of RAM, which makes binsize an even more significant hurdle for
> those (which will probably need a specially toned down build of Rockbox
> anyway).

It would be interesting to see the effect on battery performance now and
when the targets where newly ported and/or how much the binsize increased.

Sorry but my memory doesn't help me much. Which are these 384kb of RAM
targets? (I hope that you don't mean the iFP).

> But the idea that we should accept *every* feature if it's coded well is,
> honestly, way over the top.

I never said that, my whole point was not to be so rejecting at new
settings; not to instantly accept all of them. It is the consensus that
appears here that I try to avoid, that consensus later will be backed up on
IRC discussions and finally a rejecting policy might be considered de-facto.

> Honestly, in my opinion, complaining that we're accepting features too slow
> is ignoring the fact that the project is quite mature now. We need to be
> picky about features. Yes, sometimes we're too picky, but the *rate* at
> which features are accepted is irrelevant since it's a function of "the
> number of good features available" rather than "the height of the bar of
> acceptance." If we lowered the bar, we'd eventually slow down again as we
> run out of medium features. So while we're discussing this, let's keep it on
> "what is the barrier of entry" rather than talking about the rate of feature
> addition, which is a false metric.
>

I wouldn't of course, expect the "rate" to be the same. As you say the
project has matured enough so it is rather logical to have less and less
features on the tracker.\
Again I must say that the point was not the rate, but the factor of
acceptance. If it gets too negative it will be a major drawback for rockbox
development.
Received on 2008-10-28


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