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: Supported vs. unsupported builds

Re: Supported vs. unsupported builds

From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:04:40 +0200

Rafaël Carré schrieb:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:28:06 -0700
> Mike Giacomelli <giac2000_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 2) "Unstable" - all targets with working playback that developers
>> feel are usable but unstable. This classification would be informal,
>> having been agreed on by the individual ports developers that a
>> target is ready for people other then themselves to try without
>> serious risk of damage. These may or may not have official released
>> bootloaders or easy to used install tools, and generally require a
>> more informed user. This might include the AMS Sansas, Gigabeat S,
>> and the various other targets we provide compiled builds and
>> bootloaders for, but currently do not support in the forums. These
>> are less prominently displayed on the front page with a clear note
>> indicating they are incomplete. Furthermore, installation
>> instructions should clearly mention what does not work in the
>> preface.
>>
>
> Some modification of RButil might help to differentiate Stable from
> Unstable (firefox unstable builds use a bomb icon for example)
>
>
>> 3) "Unusable" - these are targets with code in SVN that cannot be
>> used for playback because they are missing substantial features
>> (playback, LCD, etc).
>>
>
> Not sure if those targets need to be advertized more than they are
> currently (in the TargetStatus wiki page)
>
>
>> Further, I think the front page should be changed to say something
>> like: Rockbox is an open source firmware for mp3 players, written
>> from scratch. It runs on a wide range of players:
>>
>> [bullet] STABLE - These targets are well tested, stable and have
>> detailed manuals... list ...[bullet] UNSTABLE - These targets are
>> currently incomplete and considered unstable but may be suitable for
>> advanced users (see whatever ) ... list ...[bullet] UNUSABLE -
>> Additional targets are under development but do not yet run rockbox -
>> see CurrentStatus wiki page.
>>
>> Or at least something to this effect. Thoughts?
>>
>
> I agree, I suppose one needs to come with a list of targets entering
> the Unstable category. (*looks at kugel for the Sansa AMS targets)
>
>

The AMS sansas are definitely in the unstable group, as the samsung YH*
(at least the 925, maybe 920 (now with sound) and 820 too) and Gigabeat
S. Depending on what the main port developers say I'd even count cowon
d2 and ondas into it (although I've only have a third person view on
those and can't tell anything about the stability, I'm just hearing good
stuff about them :) ).

For me, unstable really only means stable music playback and a mostly
reliable storage driver("mostly reliable" means to me: It may crash or
panic or not work at all, but it shouldn't corrupt the data).

For what's it worth, I'd even go for supporting the AMS sansas dispite
of the microsd issues (it doesn't actually corrupt data, does it?). If
anyone feels greatly uncomfortable with it, I can understand that. But
I'd even tend to support them without microsd support for now (and keep
the testing builds with microsd around).

So my list would be e200v2, fuze, beast and yh925.

@saratoga. Yea, you're basically concluding what we agreed on at the
devcon. Yet, nobody has taken a step to actually make it happen for a
target or two. I think we really should get something running soon'ish.
But we also have a release upcoming which we might focus on for the next
3 weeks.

Holding back ports just because they don't reach the feature set of
existing supported targets is silly IMO.

Best regards.
Received on 2009-09-03


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