Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Release policy and coordination
Re: Release policy and coordination
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:53:38 -0500
My vote is for A. I was actually going to suggest that in my previous one,
but tied it off and fell asleep for a while instead.
If the H300 issue really is a hardware problem, or any single primary cause,
the changes necessary to fix it will hopefully be able to be backed into the
3.0 code, and it can later be added to the release (just as a 3.0 on H300
release) in my opinion. Not ideal, but it'll give the H300 users something
more than simply "Use less buggy code with power issues, or potentially more
buggy code without them."
On 5/30/06, Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006, bk wrote:
> > Obviously there's some problems to deal with, since we've been in a
> > forever, there's little CVS activity and no clear indications on when a
> > release might happen, what's holding it up or who even makes the final
> > decision.
> Yes, there are too few developers actually focused on fixing the bugs and
> remaining issues. The majority of us all are just waiting for others to
> them so that 3.0 is released and the freeze is lifted.
> Personally, I say we basically are down to two options:
> A) drop H300 from the release and ship Rockbox 3.0 for Archos and iriver
> on friday.
> B) drop the entire release and make another release attempt later on
> when we
> have sorted out the remaining playback/voice issues and possibly a
> power related issues on H300.
> I think I favour version A here.
> Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Received on 2006-05-30