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: HWCODEC

Re: HWCODEC

From: Thomas Martitz <kugel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:00:21 +0100

Am 24.12.2011 16:46, schrieb Dominik Riebeling:
>
> How often have others by making / unifying things? Why is it a
> "positive exeption" if someone who is mainly inactive these days
> starts working on some stuff again? I find such a "positive exception"
> statement pretty inappropriate.

An exception of repeatedly saying how things can be unified but not
implementing it.

>> This has been done. But the calls are often unheard. You're right about the
> Maybe it's also because those calls are placed in the wrong channel?
> Do you really expect inactive developers to monitor the project all
> the time? I don't consider myself inactive and am not able to monitor
> all IRC chat that's going on. IRC is really a nice medium but it's
> rather bad if you're not able to be around and follow its discussions
> regularly. Since people tend to have other obligations (like a day job
> for example) this can be quite a serious issue (at least for me it was
> *much* easier following Rockbox development when I was a student than
> these days having a fulltime job, and it was *much* easier to actually
> find the time to get things done).
>

It's not just IRC. Many calls are posted to the mailing list as well
with little or no feedback.

> which pretty much means something I'd like to see since quite a while:
> automated (unit-)tests. And it's not a HWCODEC problem, the same
> problem exists on SWCODEC. The only difference is that there are way
> more users for SWCODEC targets, and (at least some of those users)
> file bug reports. There are rarely used feature that can have bugs for
> long before anyone reports them, and that's true for SWCODEC as it is
> for HWCODEC. In fact, since Rockbox has much more features on SWCODEC
> I expect may more hidden bugs in SWCODEC code than in HWCODEC code.
> The number of features Rockbox has these days makes it simply
> impossible for any dev to test everything. There was some discussion
> about automated test like one year ago IIRC. And also IIRC people did
> agree that automated test would be a good thing. Nothing happened
> since. Where have the active devs been since? Why did nobody work on
> automated (unit-)tests? Why don't we have any test programs for e.g.
> buflib in svn? You surely used some test programs during development,
> didn't you?

Yes, and I'm guily of not having them committed. That was because the
buflib in Rockbox and the out-of-tree one diverged pretty quickly.
However I rebased them recently and still want to commit them at some point.

>> Also code unification is nice, but it doesn't solve all problems and it
>> doesn't make testing unecessary. Many things can't be reasonably implemented
>> in a unified manner. And even then, things cannot be tested properly.
> Why can't unified things be tested properly? Unified stuff is actually
> *way* better for testing, since the target dependent stuff can be
> replaced with test stubs or an implementation on a host machine.

Sorry, I wasn't clear here. By "cannot be tested properly" I wanted to
refer the aforementioned problem of too few people being available for
testing. I didn't mean that the code cannot be tested properly.

Best regards.
Received on 2011-12-24


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