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: Target classifications v2 ?

Re: Target classifications v2 ?

From: Rob Purchase <rob.purchase_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:14:28 +0100

On 12/10/2009 11:51, Johannes Linke wrote:
> PS: I suggest changing "stable" to "complete" or something else... If
> you see stable and usable, you think usable = unstable, but unstable
> is often = unusable...
>
> Imo the following classifications would be best:
>
> Complete - well, complete. This port offers everything Rockbox can offer.
> Usable - stable, audio playback, manual, support by installer, no
> serious bugs. Things like recording or Video are not required.
> Unusable - everything else.
>
I like Dave's suggestion, but maybe we are getting too hung up on the
implications of the words "usable", "unstable" etc. An idea touted in
the earlier discussion was to name them something like
Gold/Silver/Bronze, which avoids such implications. (Obviously the names
could be changed if you can think of a better set of innocuous words...)

My suggestion would be:

Gold - "top tier" ports, as per Dave's email (eg. iArchos, iHP, X5, F/X etc)
Silver - mature ports, but with some flaws (eg. iPods, maybe Sansa AMS, etc)
Bronze - working ports, but with significant flaws (eg. Gigabeat S, D2,
m:Robe 500, Ondas?).

Ports that lack even basic functionality shouldn't be mentioned on the
front page (and will be covered by the link to the TargetStatus page
anyway).

In this way the user's expectation (and level of support they can
expect) decreases naturally in each tier.

Any thoughts?

Rob.
Received on 2009-10-12


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