On 24 March 2010 11:17, Dave Chapman <[email protected]> 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). > > Dave. >
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.
