From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:02:27 -0800

2009/12/21 Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>:
> Am 22.12.2009 00:57, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
>>
>> 2009/12/21 Thomas Martitz<thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 21.12.2009 21:41, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/12/21 Thomas Martitz<thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>

are you incapable of having a discussion like an adult? all three of
your posts up to and including this one are agressive and outright
rude
Received on 2009-12-22