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: Forum thoughts

Re: Forum thoughts

From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:21:47 -0500

Robert Menes wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM, David Hall <dmhall_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> New Layout:
>>
>> Rockbox General
>> Administration / Forum business
>> Announcements
>> Rockbox General Discussion
>> Feature Ideas
>> WPS and Appearance Customization
>> Recording
>> Plugins / Viewers
>> User Interface and Voice
>> Getting Started: Installation / Removal
>> RBUtil
>> Archos
>> Iriver
>> Apple
>> Cowon
>> Toshiba
>> Sandisk
>> Olympus
>> Rockbox Development
>> Getting Started and Compiling
>> FlySpray Testing Builds
>> New Ports
>> The Rockbox Lifestyle
>> Hardware
>> Repairing Broken Players
>> Rockbox Helper Software
>> WinFF
>> QTScrobbler
>> Rockbox Font Converter
>> etc.
>> etc.
>> Unsupported Builds
>>
>>

I have a few concerns. First is that with the RBUtil section. we're just
splitting up install questions further. Much like we have "Repairing
Broken Players" as a subcategory to Hardware, maybe we should should
have "RBUtil" and "Manual Installation" being the only two categories
under Installation/Removal, with "Manual Installation" not being a
single forum, but rather containing the normal existing subforums. That
way no player-specific names are immediately seen on the front page
(maybe reducing non-install questions in these sections, too).

For "Rockbox Helper Software", do we really want a board for each one?
And what's the criteria for adding them. For example, WinFF does have
Rockbox presets. But (if I understand correctly) the extent of
QTScrobbler's support of Rockbox is that we output the standards-correct
logfile, and it updates it. So while Rockbox is currently the only thing
you'd really use it with, it's not Rockbox specific at all, just
standard specific to one we're the only real user of so far? (I may
misunderstand, but if that's not how QTScrobbler works, imagine another
program that fits a similar situation, I guess).

Basically, do we obligate ourselves to add a board for every utility
someone might choose to use with Rockbox, or every one that someone
*does* write for Rockbox, or simply the ones we feel are good enough to
endorse?

Maybe it could be split into boards like "Video Converters" "Theme
tools" "Library Tools" and similar, rather than highlighting specific
applications?
Received on 2009-03-30


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