On 7 May 2010 15:59, Paul Louden <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it really necessary to have an icon to tell whether a menu function can > be assigned to a hotkey? > Abso-fucking-lutley!
> We don't have one for if they can be assigned to a quickscreen, and it's > fairly easy to be able to check if an option can be assigned to a hotkey > very quickly. Not to mention if someone changes the hotkey often, they will > likely remember which functions they use it on. > If they change it often there is a good chance the icon will help then alot! > It seems simply additional bloat for a feature that's very unnecessary, > especially given the significant binsize increase from the patch. > read the logs, Blue_Dude said he'd figure out the delta after sleeping > Not to mention there's no added manual description for what these new > visuals mean, so it's completely useless to the user anyway except to figure > it out by trial and error. > So go write it? > The patch didn't even exist on the tracker for longer than a day before > committing, and the author noted in IRC shortly after the commit that it > seemed to have something wrong (the huge RAM usage increase) and left it in > Rockbox, going to sleep rather than staying to fix it, or reverting it to > come back later. Is there some reason it couldn't have been removed when it > immediately didn't cause the expected result? It just seems to me that a > patch that is definitely not working quite right shouldn't just be left > applied for later when you know immediately something is wrong. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
