Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Target classifications v2 ?
Re: Target classifications v2 ?
From: Rob Purchase <rob.purchase_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:14:28 +0100
On 12/10/2009 11:51, Johannes Linke wrote:
> PS: I suggest changing "stable" to "complete" or something else... If
> you see stable and usable, you think usable = unstable, but unstable
> is often = unusable...
> Imo the following classifications would be best:
> Complete - well, complete. This port offers everything Rockbox can offer.
> Usable - stable, audio playback, manual, support by installer, no
> serious bugs. Things like recording or Video are not required.
> Unusable - everything else.
I like Dave's suggestion, but maybe we are getting too hung up on the
implications of the words "usable", "unstable" etc. An idea touted in
the earlier discussion was to name them something like
Gold/Silver/Bronze, which avoids such implications. (Obviously the names
could be changed if you can think of a better set of innocuous words...)
My suggestion would be:
Gold - "top tier" ports, as per Dave's email (eg. iArchos, iHP, X5, F/X etc)
Silver - mature ports, but with some flaws (eg. iPods, maybe Sansa AMS, etc)
Bronze - working ports, but with significant flaws (eg. Gigabeat S, D2,
m:Robe 500, Ondas?).
Ports that lack even basic functionality shouldn't be mentioned on the
front page (and will be covered by the link to the TargetStatus page
In this way the user's expectation (and level of support they can
expect) decreases naturally in each tier.
Received on 2009-10-12