On 3/23/2010 8:35 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
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.
I ussually just sit back and watch the lists, but something i want to
bring up: has anything ever been taken /off /the NoDO? if so, why? what
changed that allowed something that "couldn't" exist one day, be
possible the next? If not, what's *really* forcing the devs against
doing it? (im not saying anyone's lazy, at all, everyone in COMMITERS
deserves a pat on the back.) anyway, just thought Id'e bring that to light.
Gareth
