Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Making absolute point mode default
Re: Making absolute point mode default
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:21:58 +0100
Am 01.11.2010 01:21, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
> On 1 November 2010 03:24, Thomas Martitz
> <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Ok, I made absolute point mode default on RaaA and the Onda targets now. I
>> left the others (d2, mr500) out because I'm tired of this discussion. May
>> those never get fixed.
>> Best regards.
> So what was the point of the thread if you were just going to ignore
> the decision because you don't like it?
> This needs to be reverted.
> There are at least 4 no's in this thread which is more than enough to
> kill any changes, and all 4 no's agree on my points that would take
> all of maybe an hour work to be acceptable (which would mean *all*
> touchscreen targets could get it instead of just 2).
I realized it wasn't clear from my first post, I'm sorry about that. It
was my plan from the beginning to change the default for at least RaaA.
And I never intended to make a vote or so, but instead gather opinions
as to what to do about the other touchscreen targets. I (IMO rightfully)
didn't change the two other targets because we didn't reach a consensus
(even though everyone is _generally_ in favor of changing the default).
I'm wondering why you want it reverted because I see quotes like this
from you in IRC:
11.08.54 # <JdGordon> OH FUCKING HELL, WHY IS GRID MODE STILL FUCKING
11.08.57 # <JdGordon>
Reading this actually motivated me to make the change. And it made me
think you're strongly in favor of changing the default. You were angry
that the change still didn't happen and now chose to blame me? I'm confused.
> Android might pass the conditions of not being able to get stuck in
> any screen (except panic), but IIUC the onda sure isn't. If that ports
> main dev says it is ready is mostly irrelevant. Defaults are *not*
> there for the devs, they are there for new users, so changing that to
> absolute was no question against the vote.
But *unusable* ports aren't for new users. We don't have any
responsibility towards users for these two ports. We have the 3-tier
system for this reason. Heck, the targets I changed are in the same
category as targets that probably don't even boot anymore.
Also, who else - if not the maintainer - has the power to say when the
target is ready? Who? I find it disrespectful to disregard the opinion
of the one and only maintainer, declaring it irrelevant.
Received on 2010-11-01