> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:44:04 +0100
> From: ku...@rockbox.org
> To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
> Subject: Re: IPod 1G/2G - FS#8778
>
> Am 24.12.2011 20:39, schrieb Torne Wuff:
> > Isn't the serious issue in question "we can't power off"? :)
> >
>
> Not according to the wiki page. Footnote 1
Am 24.12.2011 20:39, schrieb Torne Wuff:
Isn't the serious issue in question "we can't power off"? :)
Not according to the wiki page. Footnote 1 is about the scrollwheel problem.
I can't find any mention of that "we can't power off" problem there. Is
that documented somewhere? I don't think
>
> I just stumbled upon
> http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/TargetStatus#New_Platforms_Currently_Under_De and
> the red notice that ipod 1g2g have a serious issue. The issue appears
> (to me as a non-owner, anyway) fixed by FS#8778.
>
> Does anyone know more about this? If not, I would tend to co
>After reading the replies to this so far and thinking about HWCODEC,
>here are my thoughts.
Thanks for commenting, you're probably the developer whose opinion I
am most interested in.
>I'm also an advocate of keeping stuff similar wherever possible. This
>will actually simplify code, and also gi
Isn't the serious issue in question "we can't power off"? :)
On 24 December 2011 12:06, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just stumbled upon
> http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/TargetStatus#New_Platforms_Currently_Under_De
> and the red notice that ipod 1g2g have a serious issue. The issue appears
>
Le 11-12-24 07:01, Jens Arnold a écrit :
Hi all,
Hello,
Of course one cannot expect an
immediate reaction (like a certain dev sometimes seems to).
No secret please, name this "certain dev" or just don't mention him at all
Am 24.12.2011 16:46, schrieb Dominik Riebeling:
How often have others by making / unifying things? Why is it a
"positive exeption" if someone who is mainly inactive these days
starts working on some stuff again? I find such a "positive exception"
statement pretty inappropriate.
An exception of
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> I'm also an advocate of keeping stuff similar wherever possible. This will
> actually simplify code, and also give it more testing (because it's running
> on more targets) so bugs are (hopefully) found earlier.
>
> You advocate, fine. But yo
Am 24.12.2011 13:01, schrieb Jens Arnold:
Advantages:
***Greatly simplify large parts of the code for SWCODEC targets (see
JdGordon's forum posts in rockbox general)
I fail to see how forking HWCODEC will actually simplify SWCODEC code.
All it does is that it removes a number of #ifdefs (o
Hello,
I just stumbled upon
http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/TargetStatus#New_Platforms_Currently_Under_De and
the red notice that ipod 1g2g have a serious issue. The issue appears
(to me as a non-owner, anyway) fixed by FS#8778.
Does anyone know more about this? If not, I would tend to commit th
Hi all,
On 15 Dec 2011 Mike Giacomelli wrote:
Over the last couple months there has been some discussion about what
to do with HWCODEC following dreamlayer's forum thread. During this
After reading the replies to this so far and thinking about HWCODEC,
here are my thoughts.
discussion, s
11 matches
Mail list logo