I agree. As I said, my intent was never to come down on you. I saw when you
originally posted it, and I didn't object to it then because I misunderstood
what it was then, not because I misunderstand what it is now. Then, I
thought it was *just* a backport of the fix.

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding this may have caused now, but I really
want to make sure that there is consistency in how unsupported builds are
handled, and I'm glad Rasher has offered you hosting space. Believe it or
not, I was looking around for adequate free hosting until I saw his post.

On 1/6/07, Tom Cole <tcole_at_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:22:11 -0600, "Paul Louden" <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Notice my VERY first post regarding this issue in which I said:
> >
> >"I may be missiong something, but it seems that if continued development
> is
> >going to happen on this unofficial build, rather than it being a single
> >static updated to 2.5, it should be treated as all the other unofficial
> >builds rather than being hosted on the wiki in such a way"
> >
> >Isn't this exactly what you just said would've been enough? A polite
> >suggestion that it should be moved off to conform with the way other
> >unofficial builds are handled?
>
> But you prefixed it with:
> >I thought Rockbox 2.5.1 was meant to only be 2.5 with the improved power
> >handling on Recorders and a few other bug fixes. At this point it seems
> to be
> >becoming a custom build.
>
> This indicated that there was a fundamental misunderstanding about the
> purpose of the build, which I felt needed to be addressed. (ie it always
> was a custom build).
>
> And even in your self quote, above, there was the statement about
> whether it could be updated or not. No one had ever told me that it
> shouldn't be updated. A wiki entry which can't be updated? Contrary to
> the spirit of wiki, I think.
>
> These were the issues I was addressing.
>
> However, let's not rehash the whole thing again.
>
>
Received on 2007-01-07