Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Signing off.
Re: Signing off.
From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren_at_smiths-aerospace.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:21:57 -0500
Kjell Ericson wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, gl wrote:
>> yet the leads aren't even responding to the points and questions raised.
> They have. Which questions do you think aren't answered?
> You are welcome back when you use a real name.
> // Kjell
Disclaimer: I'm not a core developer and don't presume to speak for the
Rockbox development leads. These are my opinions and deductions, but I
believe them to be accurate.
Anonymous developers (gl, BC, and others disenfranchised by the "no
anonymous code" rule) are also welcome to create their own Rockbox
fork/spinoff/adjunct and contribute their patches there. BC has already
done this with his code:
The Rockbox documentation page points to BC's site (under External
Pages). This indicates a spirit of cooperation and acceptance, just not
of code. I know BC joins in a lot of discussion and has good ideas (and
apparently good code). Perhaps BC will be willing to accept other
anonymous contributor's code and thus be the focal point for anonymous
IMHO Rockbox is _not_ hostile to anonymous developers, however
rockbox.org, has a fairly long standing policy about not accepting
anonymous contributions (unfortunately not well advertised, hopefully
that will be rectified). It's been discussed thoroughly and is very
unlikely to change. Please accept this and move on, either with an
anonymous contribution Rockbox fork/support site or by keeping your
patches to yourself. I am OK with either choice and I believe the
Rockbox project is as well.
It is the prerogative of the Rockbox.org developers to choose what code
to accept. It is anonymous developers' prerogative to not give out
their names. If the choice of being anonymous conflicts with
Rockbox.org's choice to not accept anonymous contributions, trying to
force Rockbox.org change _their_ choice is unreasonable.
Received on 2006-03-13