I agree. As I said, my intent was never to come down on you. I saw when you originally posted it, and I didn't object to it then because I misunderstood what it was then, not because I misunderstand what it is now. Then, I thought it was *just* a backport of the fix.
I'm sorry for any misunderstanding this may have caused now, but I really want to make sure that there is consistency in how unsupported builds are handled, and I'm glad Rasher has offered you hosting space. Believe it or not, I was looking around for adequate free hosting until I saw his post. On 1/6/07, Tom Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:22:11 -0600, "Paul Louden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Notice my VERY first post regarding this issue in which I said: > >"I may be missiong something, but it seems that if continued development is >going to happen on this unofficial build, rather than it being a single >static updated to 2.5, it should be treated as all the other unofficial >builds rather than being hosted on the wiki in such a way" > >Isn't this exactly what you just said would've been enough? A polite >suggestion that it should be moved off to conform with the way other >unofficial builds are handled? But you prefixed it with: >I thought Rockbox 2.5.1 was meant to only be 2.5 with the improved power >handling on Recorders and a few other bug fixes. At this point it seems to be >becoming a custom build. This indicated that there was a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of the build, which I felt needed to be addressed. (ie it always was a custom build). And even in your self quote, above, there was the statement about whether it could be updated or not. No one had ever told me that it shouldn't be updated. A wiki entry which can't be updated? Contrary to the spirit of wiki, I think. These were the issues I was addressing. However, let's not rehash the whole thing again.
