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: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:55:28 -0500

Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> how about bringing them back to a sane level like they used to be?
> 18months ago we wernt having this disucssion, filetype colours, icons
> in menus, and then custom icons happened. Would these have going in
> today? I doubt it. the improved (read: pretty) line selector is
> another thing that adds nothing. study mode only got in because it was
> a drive-by-commit... oh and its still there...
>
> Are these "mediocre" features? well they arent completly crap and I'd
> like to find someone who can say they add something which was really
> missing, so fine call them what you will, but 18 months ago here was
> no problem with these, now (and for the last year at least) these
> wouldnt make the cut.
>
If they wouldn't make the cut, why are we even considering multifont?
Why did we add conditional viewports? Why are we interested in
positional list viewports and skinnable progress bar?

Clearly, some features that don't "add" functionality are still in the
area of things we want. Since this isn't about any specific feature, I'd
say these alone prove we're willing to consider features that aren't
purely functional.

And as a note, study mode offers a very much improved ability to seek
both quickly long distances, and finely afterward, in very large files.
Something Rockbox didn't really have before. It was very easy to
overshoot significantly with the previous seek method, if your target
point was in the middle of a file.

So, claiming their "insane" is a bit much. It's clear we don't reject
every feature out of hand, and in fact, if you look at recently rejected
patches in the tracker I think you'll find there aren't too many you'd
argue for inclusion of.

Is this about the actual barrier for entry, or is this just a complaint
about the fact that people *will* debate (and possibly complain) about
features that do enter, but they don't like. Because honestly, you're
not going to get people to agree to stop objecting to them, period.
Meanwhile, evidence clearly shows we don't have that high a percentage
of rejections, and very very very few reversions.
Received on 2008-10-28


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