|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Handling NoDo featuresRe: Handling NoDo features
From: Gareth Schakel <gareth7yo_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:58:48 -0400 On 3/23/2010 8:35 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote: > On 24 March 2010 11:17, Dave Chapman<dave_at_dchapman.com> wrote: > >> I agree that giving a rationale for some no-do items is going to be very >> hard - especially when Rockbox runs on such a wide range of hardware. A >> feature that uses 100KB of RAM is obviously unlikely to be acceptable on 2MB >> targets, but will have far less impact our 64MB targets. >> >> In my view, binsize shouldn't generally be used as an argument against new >> features. Instead, the argument should be that we don't want the added >> complication to the code. Often these two go hand in hand. >> >> But having said that, I fully agree with Frank's proposal - the barrier to >> entry of the "no-do" list should be high, the reasons transparent, and the >> collective opnions of developers on the no-do items should be sought >> regularly (devcon seems ideal). >> >> Dave. >> >> > Pretty much my feelings also, bin/RAM usage should never be the sole > argument against something. > > I also feel that almost nothing should be NoDo unless it is actually > technically out of the question. > I ussually just sit back and watch the lists, but something i want to bring up: has anything ever been taken /off /the NoDO? if so, why? what changed that allowed something that "couldn't" exist one day, be possible the next? If not, what's *really* forcing the devs against doing it? (im not saying anyone's lazy, at all, everyone in COMMITERS deserves a pat on the back.) anyway, just thought Id'e bring that to light. Gareth Received on 2010-03-24 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |