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: idea for formalising committal of new features.

Re: idea for formalising committal of new features.

From: alex wallis <alexwallis646_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:22:38 +0100

snip
> just because "people like the idea" doesn't mean something belongs in
> Rockbox.

But who decides what does and what doesn't belong in rockbox, there is
no formalised structure decisions just seem to be made on the whim of
one or two people.
> If you can't find one person who's willing to take responsibility for a
> patch in the current system, why does it seem likely a designated
> release manager is likely to take responsibility for dozens of patches?

I am not saying just commit everything, but it seems to me that the
only way to get things done is to ask and hope someone Responds. If
there is a set procedure to at least get the ball rolling on committal
that would be an improvement.

At the very least, surely it would be an idea to have some formal
tracker review process for both bugs and patches once a year maybe at
the devcons, or over the period of a few weeks by some kind of review
committee, to determine the status of old tasks.
Perhaps some kind of time limits could be put in place so that the
tracker as a hole is reviewed anually, and tasks that are older than a
certain cutoff date or that have had no activity for a certain length
of time should be closed.

For example some of the bugs also listed on the tracker are years old,
have they been fixed? Did they even exist in the first place? have
they even been looked at recently?
A formal system of tracker review should also investigate that.

> Is the idea that "if a lot of people like the idea, the release
> manager's job is to just commit it as long as there are no obvious
> problems?" Someone always needs to take responsibility for a patch.
True, but surely if there is demand for something that should be
considered. At the moment it seems to me, the decisions of weather to
close a task, or accept it are made by individuals just as
individuals.
Whereas what I am simply suggesting is some kind of formal group based
discussion at a set time of features, along with a set root for people
to actively say I would like to see this in rockbox. Of course impact
of inclusion must be assessed but it seems to me at the moment this is
done by individuals on an ad hoc basis.
Received on 2010-08-23


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