dev builds
themes manual
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
dev guide

Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: themes, skins, backdrops and RAM usage... (i.e sure to be controversial)

Re: themes, skins, backdrops and RAM usage... (i.e sure to be controversial)

From: Thomas Martitz <>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:31:05 +0100

Am 22.12.2009 00:57, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
> 2009/12/21 Thomas Martitz<>:
>> Am 21.12.2009 21:41, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
>>> 2009/12/21 Thomas Martitz<>:
>>>> Stop acting as if everyone was using the new possibilities. Those
>>>> setttings
>>>> are still valid. Rockbox can be perfectly used without sbs or ui viewport
>>>> at
>>>> all. Those are additional features, not requirements. Also, you can put a
>>>> "-" in the viewport definitions for the colors in which case the global
>>>> settings are used.
>>> set the colours to - and watch what happens when you change the
>>> colours manually.
>> It doesn't apply until after a reboot. It appears you introduced that bug
>> then lately, because I kept it working with my custom ui vp and sbs patches.
>> Anyway, that one is easy to fix and doesn't make them obsolete.
>> Best regards.
> its the same argument about which takes precedence, the ui viewport of
> %Vi from the sbs, in this case its the colour setting or the colour
> from the winner of the viewport one... the whole point is there should
> be no argument anywhere because there should be no choice.
> In actual fact, the only time the setting would ever make sense is if
> the viewport can remember that its set to - and not a value, and even
> then that would only work if the setting is loaded before the skin
> (might be correct, but based on an assumption, not a spec).
> circling back to the argument 2 months ago about which viewport gets
> precendece... there is exactly one use case where it makes sense that
> the setting exists, i.e if the user wants a smaller list than the
> themer origionally allowed for in the sbs, which is now a mute point
> because its a 1 line change in the sbs because we force the list to
> fit inside it anyway.

Exactly, we had this discussion a few weeks ago already. And we got a
consensus after a painful discussion. Why do you question that again
now, coming with the very same arguments? You again mix two separate
features together.

Is that how discussing with you works? Get a consensus just to re-enter
the same topic a few weeks later because you didn't get what you want? I
hope not.
Received on 2009-12-22

Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy