dev builds
themes manual
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
dev guide

Rockbox mail archive

Subject: 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: Tom Cole <>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:23:50 +1300

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:42:46 -0500, Paul Louden <>

>Tom Cole wrote:
>> I notice that the 3.4 releasers have *not* stepped forward and said "We
>> tested the voice file on the Archos V1 Recorder and it worked for us".
>> Without commenting on the technical skills of John Covici (the OP), I
>> think it is unreasonable to expect a blind person to have to jump
>> through these kind of hoops in order to use a rather important (to them)
>> basic facility of the release.
>Nobody expects him to have to jump through those kinds of hoops. The
>software is simply made available. You can use it or not, at your
>choosing. It's not like you're paying for it.

If you had read the previous posts in this thread you would have seen
that Dominik Wenger was expecting John Covici (a blind user) to
re-generate the voice file with different Lame parameters and report
back. My comments were in relation to this.
>It's made entirely by volunteers. If you want to see that something like
>this doesn't happen, *you* should put in the effort to do the testing
>before the release. You didn't, it happened, and now despite the fact
>that you haven't volunteered any time at all, you're complaining about
>the fact that volunteers who may not even *have* this hardware (as,
>believe it or not, not every developer owns every piece of hardware,
>especially relatively ancient hardware like this) didn't catch this
>issue in advance.
It's good to see that you are back in attack mode, Paul.

>There's a finite amount of time in the world, and "hold up the release
>until every feature is tested on every hardware" is basically equivalent
>to "never release." Releases are given the best testing they can be
>given by the people available in the time available. By volunteers.
The 'release' for the Archos consists of 3 downloadable files. One of
these is the manual, the other two are software. I think it is
reasonable to expect that the two software files should work together.

>So, frankly, if you're not happy with the process, don't use the software.

I don't use version 3.4. If your views are the views of the developers
and version 3.4 releaser(s), then I'm not happy with the process. As a
retired software developer myself, I am surprised that the releaser(s)
(volunteers or not) are satisfied with their performance on this.


I *do* wish that someone would change the mailing list software to
include the correct signature delimiter line of "-- " (dash dash space)
prior to this signature that is appended to our posts. It's Mailing List

Received on 2009-09-30

Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy