Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:15:02 +1100
2008/10/28 Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>:
> If they wouldn't make the cut, why are we even considering multifont? Why
> did we add conditional viewports? Why are we interested in positional list
> viewports and skinnable progress bar?
none of these have a working patch yet, and yes there will be argument
if/when they ever are ready.
> Clearly, some features that don't "add" functionality are still in the area
> of things we want. Since this isn't about any specific feature, I'd say
> these alone prove we're willing to consider features that aren't purely
So these are the only 3 features which will be considered in the next
<timeframe>? why are they better than say XavierGr's patch?
> And as a note, study mode offers a very much improved ability to seek both
> quickly long distances, and finely afterward, in very large files. Something
> Rockbox didn't really have before. It was very easy to overshoot
> significantly with the previous seek method, if your target point was in the
> middle of a file.
yes I know, I'm just saying that had it come up for discussion it
would have been blocked, it didn't so it wasn't.
> So, claiming their "insane" is a bit much. It's clear we don't reject every
> feature out of hand, and in fact, if you look at recently rejected patches
> in the tracker I think you'll find there aren't too many you'd argue for
> inclusion of.
you're putting words in my mouth... and well thats another point,
patches arent outright rejected untill they come up for discussion,
there are left to rot in the tracker.
> Is this about the actual barrier for entry, or is this just a complaint
> about the fact that people *will* debate (and possibly complain) about
> features that do enter, but they don't like.
If we want to be democratic how can they be separate issues? Debate is
fine (fun even), what we have in IRC after a contentious commit is not
debate. what we have before a commit is not debate.
> Because honestly, you're not
> going to get people to agree to stop objecting to them, period. Meanwhile,
> evidence clearly shows we don't have that high a percentage of rejections,
> and very very very few reversions.
We have a very high level of patch rot which is the same thing (some
of the time), and yes reversions are something which is almost never
done which is a very nice thing.
Received on 2008-10-28