Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas47_at_arcor.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:44:53 +0100
> I suggested moving the settings to a plugin a while ago on IRC, the major
> objections were:
> a) Voice isn't (yet) supported
> b) Requires a disk spinup (to load the plugin) each time you want to change
> a setting.
I too suggested that some time ago, and the idea was rejected for the
same reasons. Some people tended to call it a "evil plan", so I guess
there's much scepticalness about that. Although I never understood why.
I personally hardly change settings that frequently that a disk spinnup
would not be worth it. Also, the buffering could take the opportunity of
such a spin up and just rebuffer, just since the disk is already
spinning, and so minimalize the extra spin ups.
But that only helps against the bin size. There's also other problems,
e.g. the settings bloat. I absolutely hate settings bloat. I know lots
of apps, which I just never started to use, because all the zillions of
settings kinda gave me a headache. Settings bloat rather keeps new users
(and contributers) away from rockbox, rather then inviting them. This
could be a bit solved with having very advanced/expert settings not in
the settings menu, but rather only achievable through editing the config
That would do great to together with a pc app which would possibly let
one change any setting, and only shipping the core settings with Rockbox.
However, that of course leads to the discussion which setting is to be
considered as core setting and which as expert and which as advanced and
so on. That's very personal taste.
In the end I tend to agree with Llorean. Keeping the settings as simple
as possible, but without excluding/rejecting worthwhile features due to
that is the way to go. Achieving that is truly a challenge though and
will not reduce the amount of precommit discussions.
Received on 2008-10-27