From: Daniel Gudlat <gudlat_at_web.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:29:07 +0100

Hi,
Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> I suggest that we package and release EXACTLY what we have now in CVS,
> without waiting for _any_ additional patches. (With the exception of
> bug fixes.)

I would second that. Rockbox-cvs is already so much better than the 2.0
release, and that is now 7 months past...

> I fully agree that several of the patches in the patch tracker are way
> cool and should go in soon, but let's do them after the 2.1 release.
> Heck, if we just get all the nice patches in, we could release a 2.2
> immediately and that wouldn't have to wait another eon.

My suggestion as an outsider/user would be to stabilize/bug hunt the
current features and get the 2.1 release out the door. Then see which of
the existing patches (playlist viewer, talkbox and bookmarking all seem
to be ready for this and in relatively high demand, if this mailing list
is any indication) should be included in 2.2, get them into CVS in some
sensible order and shake out the ensuing bugs. Only after this do
something about things like fm recording and the user interface
overhaul.

Mind you, I'm merely a user, and I don't know enough about those
outstanding patches to tell whether that strategy is feasible. (I think
it would perhaps help maintenance wise if some of the patch authors
could be drafted as maintainers for their respective pieces of code.)
But that's my suggestion, offered free of charge, and worth exactly what
you paid for it. ;-)

> If someone steps forward very soon and volounteers to do the editing,
> I suggest that we give a little extra time for the documentation to
> get updated.

Yup.

> This approach is suggested to achieve a 2.1 release very soon with
> what we have already. Adding lots of new patches would require an
> additional testing-period.

Exactly.

Regards,
Daniel Gudlat
Received on 2003-11-17