From: Daniel Dalton <d.dalton_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:18:32 +1100

> I agree that it's not a good idea. By including them in SVN we, directly
> or indirectly, suggest that we provide support for these patches. They

Couldn't we say "Some uneficial accessibility patches are in
trunk/accessibility please report bugs on the tracker, but this is not
yet efficially part of rockbox."

> become "official Rockbox." That means we invite people to complain if
> they fall out of sync. Or if changes to Rockbox cause them to cease
> functioning. If they are something we want, then we should include them.

Then state they are optional and not part of rockbox since they are
major patches and may interfear with the sighted.

> and close the task. I know it sounds harsh, but accessibility is a
> secondary goal. It's something really, really nice to have, but the
> primary goal is being a good music player. That shouldn't make

If there are developers specifically for accessibility, then why not?
Accessibility is very important, and it is great that rb accepts this,
because, I'm sure a lot of projects don't, but I don't see how adding a
dir with accessibility diffs would affect your primary goal?

 Daniel
Received on 2008-10-13