From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:59:36 +1000

wasnt the general consensus to keep the freeze going for a bit longer
and really try to get ppl focused on the problems?
and like has been said a million times already.. the battery issue
shouldnt keep the h300 out of the release.. just put it as a known
issue that is being looked into in the release notes.. then when ppl
complian tell them to look there...

On 01/06/06, Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I still think it'd be fair to make H100 the only _new_ release target for
> the time being. I mean the 3.0 code will be compileable for H300, and we can
> even make a 3.0 binary available for it, but calling it a "release" is like
> a stamp of approval, and it just doesn't seem right (in my opinion, of
> course) to release it with that type of bug regardless of how little or much
> it impeded use.
>
> There are _many_ people waiting for it to be "released" for H300 to use it,
> and if we say this is the release version, many people will not read
> anything else, and when they find the battery life poor expect that we've
> either given up on it, or declared it impossible to improve beyond this
> point and give up on using Rockbox.
>
> Many users don't read information on our site, or release notes, or
> anything, and I feel they could very easily make the wrong assumptions or
> become misinformed because of this, and it's much easier to simply say " 3.0
> is officially for <Archos targets> and iRiver H1xx" then when the problem is
> resolved, either back the solution into the 3.0 code for that one problem,
> or simply include H300 in whatever release is after that fix.
>
>
> On 5/31/06, Christi Alice Scarborough <christi_at_chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote:
> > > Mike Holden wrote:
> > >> For me, the battery life is a non-issue and I use my unit a lot. It
> could
> > >> always be improved on of course, but it's plenty good enough to release
> > >> IMHO.
> > >
> > > If this was a question of optimization, I would agree. In this case, it
> > > is a hardware issue, where some component is drawing a lot of current,
> > > most likely because of a faulty initialization/use of the hardware.
> >
> > I have to say that I think a release without this fix in place seems
> > plausible to me. I think we'd need to note the outstanding issue in the
> > release notes and download page, but it's not something that actually
> > stops H300 Rockbox working useably, definite bug though it is. It's
> > not really missing functionality so much as suboptimal operation in my
> > opinion, and while obviously it'd be better not to release without a
> > fix, going ahead anyway might not be so terrible.
> >
> > Christi
> >
>
>
Received on 2006-06-01