Manuel Dejonghe said:
On 5/31/06, Mike Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Gordon said:
and battery life shouldnt be a reason to not release for
h300 (not that it really means anything to most of the ppl
watching this list..)
How much of an issue is battery life on the 340 anyway? I
On 6/6/06, Mike Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No idea which bootloader version I have, but it will date from around
March this year? Whatever was current at that time.
Actually, I just forced a reboot and the bootloader says version 5.
Hi,
thanks for checking. I was just curious if the
ok, 8 could be an exaguration.. i havnt actually run the batery bench
to find out. but its more than a few hours anyway.. and im using the
v5 bootloader
On 06/06/06, Manuel Dejonghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/31/06, Mike Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Gordon said:
and battery
Very well said, Paul.
I was originally in the let's just get this out of the way so we can
end the freeze boat, but I've almost completely changed my mind. I
think that either the H300 should remain unsupported, or the issue
fixed - as Paul put it, people consider 3.0 working how it should,
and
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Dominik Riebeling wrote:
a quick idea on this: how about packaging the (still draft, but hopefully
this will be better for 3.1) manual to the release fullzip archives?
I totally agree that's what we should do.
--
Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ --
Paul Louden wrote:
Most completely casual users won't even complain though. They'll try it,
dislike it, and then switch back.
I still very strongly feel that a known bug of that degree should not
simply be a noted issue in the comments. What *strong* reson is there
to include H300 in this
Andrew Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments below concerning the typical
user who is too lazy, stupid or incapable of taking five minutes to read
the release notes.
Wow. Is that really how this project views its users? That will put
off more people than
I would like to state that the intent of my message was not to imply that users are lazy, stupid, or incapable. Simply that they are users.When something is stated as released it is a stamp saying this works how it is supposed to. It gives the user the implication that everything is functioning as
Hi,
On 6/1/06, Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
like to try, we can't guarantee that they receive the proper documentation
with it, or even know that the resources at rockbox.org exist. But we can
avoid putting our stamp of approval on what is essentially an unfinished
project.
a quick
Hmm, apologies for the many typos there. Hopefully it still makes a bit of
sense.
Steve Bavin
Jonathan Gordon said:
and battery life shouldnt be a reason to not release for
h300 (not that it really means anything to most of the ppl
watching this list..)
How much of an issue is battery life on the 340 anyway? I use an
up-to-date daily build all the time (usually no more than a couple of
Mike Holden wrote:
For me, the battery life is a non-issue and I use my unit a lot. It could
always be improved on of course, but it's plenty good enough to release
IMHO.
If this was a question of optimization, I would agree. In this case, it
is a hardware issue, where some component is
Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
... The moment we come out of freeze, a whole slew of new
features will go into the source, and a slew of new bugs with them.
If the current code is flaky, how much more flaky will post 3.0 code
be?
Has the possibility of maintaining seperate release branches been
I still think it'd be fair to make H100 the only _new_ release target for the time being. I mean the 3.0 code will be compileable for H300, and we can even make a 3.0 binary available for it, but calling it a release is like a stamp of approval, and it just doesn't seem right (in my opinion, of
wasnt the general consensus to keep the freeze going for a bit longer
and really try to get ppl focused on the problems?
and like has been said a million times already.. the battery issue
shouldnt keep the h300 out of the release.. just put it as a known
issue that is being looked into in the
Most completely casual users won't even complain though. They'll try it, dislike it, and then switch back.I still very strongly feel that a known bug of that degree should not simply be a noted issue in the comments. What *strong* reson is there to include H300 in this release? The code will be
(I must say the code lacks some comments, sometimes ;).
At the moment, I'm just looking round the sources trying to understand
them.
Would it be useful for people like myself to submit comment patches?
As I look round the code, I could add comments when I work out what
something does, and
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bryn Smith wrote:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't really encourage
newcomers to the project when they come across masses of uncommented code.
We don't write Rockbox in order to welcome newcomers. We write Rockbox for the
fun of it. We're all doing
Bryn Smith wrote:
Unfortunately most of the code I looked at had very little commenting. I
was a little surprised to find that even functions weren't documented as
to their purpose and none of the files even had a basic description of
their function!
Welcome to the world of unpaid volunteer
Well, I think I'll toss my two cents in...
There have been a few occasions where I simply head to the Flyspray
bug reports page, pick out one that's rather simple, fix, and commit
it. I'm quite the opposite of a 'core dev' - I hardly know enough to
fix half the bugs on the tracker (especially
Ah, but the battery life issue on H300 is an actual major bug, most likely, rather than simply our software running less efficiently than it could. At least, that seems to be the current belief. So instead of an improvement, it's a real bug. People can still download the
3.0 source and compile
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Zakk Roberts wrote:
iPod bug reports, and the policy is not clear to me on how aggressive we
should be about closing them because they aren't supported models. I think
several of the 'should-be-fixed' ones are also still open even after fixes
are committed with comments
I agree, with the ability of anyone to close bug reports, you should be able to close them with a message like This should be fixed in CVS now. Open a new one if the bug still exists, with updated instructions on how to reproduce them with a new build.
On 5/31/06, Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think one major problem is that this release bit off more than it could chew. One primary goal was to release for the H300, but to do that something that needed to be done was solve the power problem.The _problem_ being that I don't believe anyone has actually clearly identified what the problem
On Mon, 29 May 2006, bk wrote:
Obviously there's some problems to deal with, since we've been in a freeze
forever, there's little CVS activity and no clear indications on when a
release might happen, what's holding it up or who even makes the final
decision.
Yes, there are too few
My vote is for A. I was actually going to suggest that in my previous one, but tied it off and fell asleep for a while instead.If the H300 issue really is a hardware problem, or any single primary cause, the changes necessary to fix it will hopefully be able to be backed into the
3.0 code, and it
26 matches
Mail list logo
