From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:04:22 -0500

Most completely casual users won't even complain though. They'll try it,
dislike it, and then switch back.

I still very strongly feel that a known bug of that degree should not simply
be a noted "issue" in the comments. What *strong* reson is there to include
H300 in this release? The code will be there, people can use 3.0 on H300,
but since it's not officially released there will be no misconception that
it's fully functioning the way it should.

On 5/31/06, Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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