Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Target classifications v2 ?
Re: Target classifications v2 ?
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:12:53 +0200
On 12.10.2009 00:07, Dave Chapman wrote:
> I've been thinking a bit about the target classifications, and have
> come to the conclusion that we now have a large number of ports, in a
> wide variety of states of completion, that the current 3 categories is
> not enough.
> I would like to see the addition of a "top-tier" category - one that
> all ports should strive to enter, and one which contains Rockbox ports
> we consider to be the best examples of what our project can offer.
> Looking at the current "Stable" targets, the Archos devices, iriver
> H1x0/H3x0, Gigabeat F, iaudio X5 and maybe some of the Sansas (I don't
> own any Sansas, so can't comment) would probably go there.
> Targets where there are still serious issues, such as the lack of
> charging on ipods would be relegated to the next category down.
> So my suggestion would be along the following lines:
> 1) "Stable" - Rockbox runs very well on these players and can be
> considered a fully functional (with possible minor exceptions)
> replacement for the manufacturer's own firmware. The port also has a
> complete manual and is supported by the installer.
> 2) "Usable" - Rockbox runs well on these players and is good enough to
> be used for day to day audio playback. It has a fully documented
> installation process (and may be supported by the installer) and has a
> list of any serious known issues/limitations.
> 3) "Unusable" - Rockbox works to some extent on these players, but is
> either missing major features (such as audio playback), has serious
> bugs or a troublesome or undocumented installation procedure.
> 4) "Early development" - These ports have some code in Rockbox SVN,
> but not enough to be functional in any useful way, and they may or may
> not be under active development.
I'm not convinced we need 4. 3) and 4) sound like they could be 1
category (I don't even think targets that would be under your 4) need to
be mentioned at all as classified target). And then we're at the same
classification we have now.
We might consider renaming the current unstable to usable though.
Received on 2009-10-12