2009/9/2 Mike Giacomelli <[email protected]>: > > Hi all. > > I remember over devcon there was some discussion that our system of > unsupported and supported builds, and the parallel system or released and > unreleased ports for our quarterly releases doesn't work as well as we would > like. Personally, I think allowing advanced but still incomplete ports to > languish as unsupported discourages testing and makes it harder to attract > other potential device owners who are interested in development. > > I would like to propose that we introduce new categories: > > 1) "Stable" - all the present supported targets. Requires rbutil and well > developed drivers. These are prominently displayed on the front page. These > are the devices that are included in releases. > > 2) "Unstable" - all targets with working playback that developers feel are > usable but unstable. This classification would be informal, having been > agreed on by the individual ports developers that a target is ready for > people other then themselves to try without serious risk of damage. These > may or may not have official released bootloaders or easy to used install > tools, and generally require a more informed user. This might include the > AMS Sansas, Gigabeat S, and the various other targets we provide compiled > builds and bootloaders for, but currently do not support in the forums. > These are less prominently displayed on the front page with a clear note > indicating they are incomplete. Furthermore, installation instructions > should clearly mention what does not work in the preface. > > 3) "Unusable" - these are targets with code in SVN that cannot be used for > playback because they are missing substantial features (playback, LCD, etc). > > Its my opinion that ports with lots of users tend to attract the most > attention, so I think letting people know ports are out there and can be used > even if they're incomplete or buggy is beneficial to the project. We just > need to make it clear what does not work and what we do support in the > forums. Essentially this would be what happens now with our unsupported > builds forum (see the AMS thread there) except formalized as a step along the > way to becoming supported. > > Further, I think the front page should be changed to say something like: > Rockbox is an open source firmware for mp3 players, written from scratch. It > runs on a wide range of players: > > [bullet] STABLE - These targets are well tested, stable and have detailed > manuals... list ...[bullet] UNSTABLE - These targets are currently > incomplete and considered unstable but may be suitable for advanced users > (see whatever ) > ... list ...[bullet] UNUSABLE - Additional targets are under development but > do not yet run rockbox - see CurrentStatus wiki page. > > Or at least something to this effect. Thoughts? > _________________________________________________________________ > With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. > http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery
I disagree with the term unstable... it has the same conetations that unsupported has.. My preference would go to saying "rockbox works at various levels of stability on these targets <list them all> as well in progress ports, see TargetStatus for further details"... listing in-progress (but obviously not working) ports on the frontpage isnt a good idea.
