On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jonathan Gordon wrote:

> I think its time to have a proper discussion about adding settings

Interesting discussion. Since I was gone during the better part of it, I'll
just add my sparks to the flames:

  o I think referring to or assuming that discussions on IRC are good to
    conclude consensus or agreements from is bad. If a discussion, idea or
    feature truly is to be discussed it NEEDS to be taken to this very mailing
    list. Not even the patch tracker is good enough to attract the necessary
    attention.

  o No matter how much some people "blame" some other people for being
    feature-phobic it doesn't help even a tiny bit. What we would rather need
    is ideas or suggestions on how to work on these issues so that the
    "apply-everything" group and the "never-increase-binsize" group can get
    together and still make Rockbox develop. I could very well imagine that we
    use the Steering Board for voting on the hardest issues to avoid deadlocks.

  o We MUST still take each issue in a case-by-case approach and weigh in
    the added feature, options, coolness, beauty against the bloat, binsize,
    code complexity, support amount etc. Even if we would change in how much
    binsize we want, we still need a case-by-case decision process. And we're
    still hundreds of hackers, all with our own personal preferences to what
    way we'd like Rockbox to evolve.

-- 
  / daniel.haxx.se