Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Handling NoDo features
Re: Handling NoDo features
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:35:32 +1100
On 24 March 2010 11:17, Dave Chapman <dave_at_dchapman.com> wrote:
> I agree that giving a rationale for some no-do items is going to be very
> hard - especially when Rockbox runs on such a wide range of hardware. A
> feature that uses 100KB of RAM is obviously unlikely to be acceptable on 2MB
> targets, but will have far less impact our 64MB targets.
> In my view, binsize shouldn't generally be used as an argument against new
> features. Instead, the argument should be that we don't want the added
> complication to the code. Often these two go hand in hand.
> But having said that, I fully agree with Frank's proposal - the barrier to
> entry of the "no-do" list should be high, the reasons transparent, and the
> collective opnions of developers on the no-do items should be sought
> regularly (devcon seems ideal).
Pretty much my feelings also, bin/RAM usage should never be the sole
argument against something.
I also feel that almost nothing should be NoDo unless it is actually
technically out of the question.
Received on 2010-03-24