Antony Stone wrote:
> No, I simply meant that if the requests are never going to be implemented, why
> provide a mechanism for making them? It raises false hope.
>
>
I don't think I said they'll never be implemented. But it's common sense
that just because it hasn't been rejected, there is no guarantee that
anyone will have the time and interest to work on that specific project.
By not rejecting it, it leaves the door open for any interested party to
do it. It's a volunteer project, which means you still have to wait for
someone to volunteer. None of the existing developers are ever obligated
or should even be expected to volunteer *just* because something's in
the tracker. At the same time, it's silly to reject it just because
nobody's volunteered, I think. I do agree, though, that we need some
filter to prevent the flood of silly requests, etc.
>
> If that's what the instructions for the feature request at
> http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/FeatureRequests said then I'd be
> quite happy, if this is how the postings are indeed regarded.
>
>
I don't see that those instructions contradict my statements. "We"
refers to the Rockbox community. That includes you, and any volunteers.
So yes, "we" will work on it, when someone among "us" is interested.
>
> At present the wording suggests that if you post a feature request which
> several people want and is not impossible given hardware constraints then it
> will get a response of either "we don't think this is a good idea so we won't
> do it" or "we think this is a good idea but we don't have time to do it",
>
The fact that it wasn't rejected means that we haven't picked response
one. Do you mean that you expect someone to come forward for every
single feature request and actively type "This is a good idea, but we
don't have the time?" Do you think any person knows how much time, and
the interests, of all 70ish active developers, and can say that sort of
thing? I think it's common sense that if an idea isn't rejected, then it
means "Someone go ahead and work on it, and we'll consider the finished
product."
Received on 2008-06-21