On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
I think its time to have a proper discussion about adding settings
Interesting discussion. Since I was gone during the better part of it, I'll just add my sparks to the flames:
o I think referring to or assuming that discussions on IRC are good to conclude consensus or agreements from is bad. If a discussion, idea or feature truly is to be discussed it NEEDS to be taken to this very mailing list. Not even the patch tracker is good enough to attract the necessary attention. o No matter how much some people "blame" some other people for being feature-phobic it doesn't help even a tiny bit. What we would rather need is ideas or suggestions on how to work on these issues so that the "apply-everything" group and the "never-increase-binsize" group can get together and still make Rockbox develop. I could very well imagine that we use the Steering Board for voting on the hardest issues to avoid deadlocks. o We MUST still take each issue in a case-by-case approach and weigh in the added feature, options, coolness, beauty against the bloat, binsize, code complexity, support amount etc. Even if we would change in how much binsize we want, we still need a case-by-case decision process. And we're still hundreds of hackers, all with our own personal preferences to what way we'd like Rockbox to evolve. -- / daniel.haxx.se
