Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: unable to get latest version of Rockbox to work on old V1
RE: unable to get latest version of Rockbox to work on old V1
From: Hussein Patwa <rockbox_at_patwanet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:39:54 +0100
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:35:01AM +1300, Tom Cole wrote:
> > "And please report back if it worked." !!
> > Shouldn't the people/person who releases new official versions of
> > Rockbox check that the functions actually work on all the relevant
> > hardware? Otherwise what's the purpose of having official releases?
> It's arguable either way.
> As we're all getting the fruits of someone else's hard work I don't
> think it massively rude of them to ask for feedback or confirmation on
> some features they might be *slightly* less confident about.
I see both sides of the argument. I think it's useful to remember that
Rockbox supports so many different targets both stable and unstable. Also,
there are the different versions of those targets. It's bound to occur that
not everything is spotted and some bugs remain despite the best will in the
world. Also, we're getting this free as a result of people's genuine love
for creativity and technical challenge, and others who just want to help
other people enjoy life through developing something of benefit.
Having said that, we've clearly learnt a lesson about a potential bug here.
Maybe it's an idea to put a cautionary note in the relevant place on the
site advising that this problem of oversized voice files may occur, and
perhaps a link to a page with a fix? Also, just a thought but novice users
may be unfamiliar with the command line and the switches for lame. It may
be an idea to link to a tutorial on that - one will exist already for lame,
so it's just a case of finding it.
An offer if you like: I've been told I'm a good writer so would be willing
to write up such a page if people feel it beneficial. Note this would be my
first contribution to Rockbox so I'm unsure of the procedures, so bear with
me if I trip up along the way.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4465 (20090928) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
Received on 2009-09-29