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: Handling NoDo features

Re: Handling NoDo features

From: Dr. Keith G. Bowden <k.bowden_at_physics.bbk.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:29:31 -0000

Hi,

Can someone take me off this list please?

(I don't have access to the Web at the moment.)

Keith Bowden

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gordon" <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
To: "Rockbox development" <rockbox-dev_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Handling NoDo features

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2714 - Release Date: 02/28/10
07:34:00
Received on 2010-03-24

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