This is the bug/patch tracker for Rockbox. Click here for more information.
Quick links: Bugs · Patches · Rockbox frontpage
FS#9880 - many minor changes in the manual
Attached to Project:
Rockbox
Opened by Johannes Linke (Jaykay) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 23:18 GMT+2
Last edited by Alex Parker (BigBambi) - Sunday, 17 May 2009, 12:40 GMT+2
Opened by Johannes Linke (Jaykay) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 23:18 GMT+2
Last edited by Alex Parker (BigBambi) - Sunday, 17 May 2009, 12:40 GMT+2
|
Detailsthe title says it, many minor changes. i didnt go through the whole manual yet, so ill extend it, maybe tomorrow. i also cant check whether its still possible to build the manual, but it should be possible.
i think i have to explain some changes, just ask or say "this change is crap", maybe also why its crap. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Alex Parker (BigBambi)
Sunday, 17 May 2009, 12:40 GMT+2
Reason for closing: Accepted
Additional comments about closing: Parts accepted as part of r20900. Thanks!
Sunday, 17 May 2009, 12:40 GMT+2
Reason for closing: Accepted
Additional comments about closing: Parts accepted as part of r20900. Thanks!
As well, I'm not sure changing the "fixme" to a warning is a good idea. Fixmes help us keep track of where things need to be fixed, and that certainly does.
I'm also not sure why you removed the reference to the download page in the "updating Rockbox" section.
i thought the manual is for users, so imo its not the right place for reminders for the developers. its not more important to notice this warning than other ones, e.g. the firmware version, so imo it shouldnt be that highlighted.
the link is only to the releases of rockbox, so useless for those who want to update their current build. anyway it would be an iteration of "manual installation". maybe something like "Download a Rockbox build. as described in 2.3.2 manual installation" would be useful.
The manual is for users. But the fixme is for developers *of* the manual. Rather than removing the fixme, why not FIX the problem that results in the fixme being there? That's the whole point of it, it says "this section of the manual needs fixed." You chose, rather than fixing it, to just remove the notice that it needs fixed, the exact opposite of its purpose.
this "fixme" was added with the commit message "Add a note in the E200 install section referring E200R users to the SansaE200RInstallation wiki page." so it should only be a note. although i think a warning is better here :)
It is likely that some of this doesn't apply any more after http://svn.rockbox.org/viewvc.cgi?view=rev;revision=20034 or at least needs resynching. If you do that and let me know when it is done, I'll have a look at it.
i have to do the part with the buttons again...
For instance, why did you remove the \index{Firewire} ? I will admit here to not being sure what it does, but do you? Do you know it isn't there for a reason?
Anyway, I'll have a closer look when I get home tonight.
i only changed "index" to "note", as the index produced a note, so there should be no difference in the outcome.
You should try and get latex working - it would be nice to know you had done test builds, a single misplaced } can break manuals.
i tested it for some players and it builds fine.
if i should explain something, please ask...
and gevaerts complained about the removal of this warning, i remvoed it (the removal), but i really don't like the warning there. the manual NEVER says anything about the recovery mode, it also says nothing about how to get there. and it really doesn't fit in this place.
any opinions about these two "problems"?
We shouldn't remove a warning that's valid and important just because it mentions a feature in the Original Firmware. If they don't know about the feature, the warning won't matter to them. if they DO know about the feature, the warning can prevent them from making a mistake that causes it to be significantly more difficult to get their player working again.
If you think it doesn't fit there, find someplace better to put it. And if you think the existence of recovery mode needs to be documented further (it shouldn't - no user should ever need to enter it) do so. But don't remove valid and important warnings.
and i never said that we should document it. i said, if its not documented, why should we warn about it? its like "the OF has [a bug] which causes it to crash on playing [a file]". you don't write that in the manual too.
but i'll leave it as it is if you mean this warning is necessary.
"Recovery Mode" is a mode the original manufacturer included that may be used for firmware updates. People aware of this mode may think they're supposed to use it for firmware updates if they don't understand the real situations it should be used in. It's not a bug in the mode that's the problem. It's the fact that people may misunderstand and use it if not warned about it. It's similar to saying "please make sure you run the firmware patcher as root." We don't describe what root access means, or other OS features of the host system or anything, but it's still an important point.
A playback crash in the OF is very different from "this process which may have been recommended to you in the past by the official manufacturer for a firmware update should absolutely not be used."
but we are discussing about nothing here since it doesn't have any effect, i'll leave the patch as it is.