|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
From: XavierGr <xaviergr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:03:08 +0200 Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and > terms like this? > The phrase was a "tongue in cheek", that's what the smiley was about in case someone was offended by it. I don't get where the problem is with that. > And, as a point of interest, we're already using ~20-25% of the available > RAM on the Cowon Coldfire-based players as it stands, binsize is not *only* > important to the Archos players. We're also looking at players that only > have 384kb of RAM, which makes binsize an even more significant hurdle for > those (which will probably need a specially toned down build of Rockbox > anyway). It would be interesting to see the effect on battery performance now and when the targets where newly ported and/or how much the binsize increased. Sorry but my memory doesn't help me much. Which are these 384kb of RAM targets? (I hope that you don't mean the iFP). > But the idea that we should accept *every* feature if it's coded well is, > honestly, way over the top. I never said that, my whole point was not to be so rejecting at new settings; not to instantly accept all of them. It is the consensus that appears here that I try to avoid, that consensus later will be backed up on IRC discussions and finally a rejecting policy might be considered de-facto. > Honestly, in my opinion, complaining that we're accepting features too slow > is ignoring the fact that the project is quite mature now. We need to be > picky about features. Yes, sometimes we're too picky, but the *rate* at > which features are accepted is irrelevant since it's a function of "the > number of good features available" rather than "the height of the bar of > acceptance." If we lowered the bar, we'd eventually slow down again as we > run out of medium features. So while we're discussing this, let's keep it on > "what is the barrier of entry" rather than talking about the rate of feature > addition, which is a false metric. > I wouldn't of course, expect the "rate" to be the same. As you say the project has matured enough so it is rather logical to have less and less features on the tracker.\ Again I must say that the point was not the rate, but the factor of acceptance. If it gets too negative it will be a major drawback for rockbox development. Received on 2008-10-28 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |