From: David Hall <dmhall_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:37:03 -0400

Alex Parker wrote:
> My personal feeling is that that is too confusing -
I have no good counter to the argument that this increases complexity.


> there is always the
> current build (or a 3.2 equivalent archive build) if people want USB.
I think Jens Arnold's earlier argument that people gravitate to the
releases is a valid one, and a factor which needs to be taken into account.

> Also, how would RBUtil handle it?
Paul Louden makes the strongest argument against 3.2 + USB, IMHO. The
risk, no matter how slight, of data corruption is a serious one.*
Considering 3.2 + USB is therefore a risk, the slightly higher barrier
to entry of needing to do a manual install can be considered a good thing.

*I know Mike G. had his transfer fail mid-stream, but am curious as to
the battery state at the time of failure. My Video, for example, does
not charge fast enough to maintain battery during transfers.

IF two versions are not going to be released, then I would have to vote
(ok, not vote but "speak out") against PP USB.
1 - Reports of Mid-transfer failure and FS corruption.
2 - Inability to charge at a fast enough level to even maintain battery
state during transfers (on at least some targets.)
3 - "Breaking" of iTunes support on iPods.

We can be pedantic all we want and say "Rockbox never supported
iTunes, that was Apple's disk mode" and we would be correct. The fact
is, though, that for whatever percentage of the iPod userbase the
distinction between Rockbox USB and Apple Emergency Disk Mode is lost.
For these people I think the apparent loss of the three points I raise
above is inappropriate for a "release".

These things can be fixed, likely will be fixed, but are not ready this
(branch) week.

--soap
Received on 2009-03-15