Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> > Your objection as I understood it was that the patch does less than you'd
> > like, not that what it does is wrong.
>
> No, that's correct.
Then I think the commit can go ahead. This might only be a small part of what
some of us want to do, but the other parts (total m
Am 15.10.2011 12:01, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
Your objection as I understood it was that the patch does less than you'd like,
not that what it does is wrong. If that is a misunderstanding, could you please
clarify your stance?
--
Björn
No, that's correct.
I would like to commit it anyway
On 15 October 2011 20:53, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>> So one objection isnt enough? commit the sleep timer rework by all
>> means, but dont move t&d unless the rest of the discusison is settled.
>
> Your objection as I understood it was that the patch does less than you'd
>
Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> So one objection isnt enough? commit the sleep timer rework by all
> means, but dont move t&d unless the rest of the discusison is settled.
Your objection as I understood it was that the patch does less than you'd like,
not that what it does is wrong. If that is a misunde
On 13 October 2011 19:48, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 13.10.2011 10:42, schrieb Thomas Martitz:
>>
>> Alright, thanks for the comments discussion. I'll commit part 1) (move T&D
>> to settings) and 3) (the actual sleep timer remake) and leave the
>> System->About rename out for now.
>
> That is, in
Am 13.10.2011 10:42, schrieb Thomas Martitz:
Alright, thanks for the comments discussion. I'll commit part 1) (move
T&D to settings) and 3) (the actual sleep timer remake) and leave the
System->About rename out for now.
That is, in a few hours if there's no further objection.
Am 09.10.2011 03:31, schrieb Thomas Martitz:
I uploaded a patch series to the task doing exactly this. I intend to
commit it within the next week (perhaps wednesday) someone speaks up
against (please also do if you have already voiced your opionion).
Alright, thanks for the comments discuss
Am 10.10.2011 09:23, schrieb Björn Stenberg:
Thomas Martitz wrote:
It is a separate patch, actually :)
I mean a separate patch discussion, and a separate commit.
Okay (it would be a separate commit anyway).
I just implemented what sideral posted as summary. The summary is the
result of a d
*in the main menu
On Oct 10, 2011 8:25 PM, "Hayden Pearce" wrote:
> "About" is the main menu is a whole bunch of wrong, in my opinion. It
> should be a System/Settings (whatever it gets called) sub-menu.
> I don't see it as being important enough to deserve a placement right off
> the main menu,
"About" is the main menu is a whole bunch of wrong, in my opinion. It should
be a System/Settings (whatever it gets called) sub-menu.
I don't see it as being important enough to deserve a placement right off
the main menu, and I'm hoping I'm not the only one...
I wish I could count the times I tho
Thomas Martitz wrote:
> It is a separate patch, actually :)
I mean a separate patch discussion, and a separate commit.
--
Björn
Am 10.10.2011 09:17, schrieb Björn Stenberg:
I think the time and timer setting changes are fine. But I don't see
how the System -> About rename has any connection to it, and I would
prefer having that in a separate patch.
It is a separate patch, actually :)
Best regards.
Thomas Martitz wrote:
> I find an about menu in the main menu a nice fit.
It's rather unorthodox though. "About" is usually an option in the Help menu,
showing version and some basic credits. It's not where you find system or debug
information.
I think the time and timer setting changes are fin
Am 10.10.2011 00:31, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
Is this a strong objection, or just stating that the patches don't go far
enough in your opinion?
Best regards.
My position since the start of this thread has not changed. Any patch
which doesnt remove either settings or system from the top level
s
On 10 October 2011 01:38, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>> Bah,
>> Move the whole System menu into settings and call it whatever you
>> want. It really doesnt deserve such a high placement in the menu
>> system
>
> Is this a strong objection, or just stating that the patches don't go far
> enough in your
Am 09.10.2011 03:43, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
On 9 October 2011 12:31, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 01:08, schrieb sideral:
So here's the plan:
* Move the entire "Time&Date" menu out of "System" to "Settings"
* Rename "System" to "About"
* In the "Time&Date" menu:
* "Sleep
On 9 October 2011 12:31, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 23.08.2011 01:08, schrieb sideral:
>>
>> So here's the plan:
>>
>> * Move the entire "Time& Date" menu out of "System" to "Settings"
>>
>> * Rename "System" to "About"
>>
>> * In the "Time& Date" menu:
>> * "Sleep Timer" offers the last-used
Am 23.08.2011 01:08, schrieb sideral:
So here's the plan:
* Move the entire "Time& Date" menu out of "System" to "Settings"
* Rename "System" to "About"
* In the "Time& Date" menu:
* "Sleep Timer" offers the last-used timer value as its default.
(This value is made persistent by way
Am 23.08.2011 01:08, schrieb sideral:
So here's the plan:
* Move the entire "Time& Date" menu out of "System" to "Settings"
* Rename "System" to "About"
* In the "Time& Date" menu:
* "Sleep Timer" offers the last-used timer value as its default.
(This value is made persistent by way
On Tuesday, 27. September 2011 10:36:33 Nick Peskett wrote:
> I've a feeling if this has to be decided before it can go in, it'll
> never happen.
That was exactly my point, too ;)
Thomas
On 27/09/2011 09:21, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am Di, 27.09.2011, 08:41 schrieb Nick Peskett:
It seems something unexpected came up in the last month...
Would anyone else mind checking the patch with a view to checking it in?
Thanks for reminding. I expected the countdown difficult to be to do a
Am Di, 27.09.2011, 08:41 schrieb Nick Peskett:
> It seems something unexpected came up in the last month...
>
> Would anyone else mind checking the patch with a view to checking it in?
>
> It's quite trivial now, I've pared the patch down so it changes as
> little as possible, there's probably more
On 26/08/2011 07:46, sideral wrote:
After much IRC discussion, it turned out that my first assessment (that
there would be little to no concern about the T&D menu move) was wrong.
Discussions are still ongoing on how to change the menu in the short and
long term. Personally, I'm only marginally
On 28 August 2011 06:15, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>
> Its unfortunate that you let the single hypocrite win. Really everyone else
> agreed with moving t&d to settings.
>
> Perhaps I'll just move it afterwards...just cause.
>
> Best regards.
"how to win friends and influence people" (y)
sideral schrieb:
Jonathan Gordon writes:
> On 23 August 2011 09:08, sideral wrote:
>> Given that it looks like there's overwhelming support for (and little
>> to no concern about) moving Time& Date to Settings, I now think it's
>> fine to do that change along with the pr
alex wallis writes:
> all of the above sounds good, I do have a suggestion which I think
> could be useful for the rockbox voice users such as myself.
> I think its very good that the sleep timer menu will now show the
> remaining time, but the sleep timer menu takes several button presses
> to g
Jonathan Gordon writes:
> On 23 August 2011 09:08, sideral wrote:
>> Given that it looks like there's overwhelming support for (and little
>> to no concern about) moving Time & Date to Settings, I now think it's
>> fine to do that change along with the proposed sleep-timer
>> extensions. [...]
Am 23.08.2011 01:08, schrieb sideral:
So here's the plan:
* Move the entire "Time& Date" menu out of "System" to "Settings"
* Rename "System" to "About"
* In the "Time& Date" menu:
* "Sleep Timer" offers the last-used timer value as its default.
(This value is made persistent by way
snip
all of the above sounds good.
changes to "Cancel Sleep Timer (hh:mm)", showing the remaining
time.
all of the above sounds good, I do have a suggestion which I think could
be useful for the rockbox voice users such as myself.
I think its very good that the sleep timer menu will now show t
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Gordon
> wrote:
>> What has how you set it got anything to do with it being a setting or
>> not? Time does not magically change when you give your DAP to your
>> sibling.
>>
>
> No, but it changes when you enter another time zone. Or daylight
> savings c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dňa 23. 8. 2011 11:30, Alex Parker wrote / napísal(a):
> On 23/08/11 00:08, sideral wrote:
>> Given that it looks like there's overwhelming support for (and
>> little to no concern about) moving Time& Date to Settings, I now
>> think it's fine to d
On 23/08/11 00:08, sideral wrote:
Given that it looks like there's overwhelming support for (and little to
no concern about) moving Time& Date to Settings, I now think it's fine
to do that change along with the proposed sleep-timer extensions. Also,
I'd like to pick up Thomas Martitz's proposal
I recall I asked some time ago why Time&Date is under System and not
Settings. The answer was that this is self changing parameter while
all others settings in rb are not. Still I think Time&Date belongs to
Settings and anyone is familiar with the fact that time passes away
and you can do nothing a
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> What has how you set it got anything to do with it being a setting or
> not? Time does not magically change when you give your DAP to your
> sibling.
>
No, but it changes when you enter another time zone. Or daylight
savings changes. Or th
On 23 August 2011 10:27, Paul Louden wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with the first part of this change.
>> Time & date doesnt make any more sense in settings than it does in
>> "system" (or "info" if you want to rename it). time&date isnt a
>> se
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>
> I disagree with the first part of this change.
> Time & date doesnt make any more sense in settings than it does in
> "system" (or "info" if you want to rename it). time&date isnt a
> setting. And it does make sense to keep anything relat
On 23 August 2011 09:08, sideral wrote:
> Given that it looks like there's overwhelming support for (and little to
> no concern about) moving Time & Date to Settings, I now think it's fine
> to do that change along with the proposed sleep-timer extensions. Also,
> I'd like to pick up Thomas Marti
Given that it looks like there's overwhelming support for (and little to
no concern about) moving Time & Date to Settings, I now think it's fine
to do that change along with the proposed sleep-timer extensions. Also,
I'd like to pick up Thomas Martitz's proposal and get rid of an explicit
setting
Am Dienstag, 16. August 2011, 21:00:19 schrieb Thomas Jarosch:
> Here's another proposal: Commit the patch with the suggested changes (so
> that manual sleep timer selection is still possible) and then discuss how
> things should go further in the future (like renaming 'System' to 'About'
> etc.).
Am Dienstag, 16. August 2011, 00:17:43 schrieb Hayden Pearce:
> On 16/08/2011 8:55 AM, "sideral" wrote:
> >By default, options for System functions belong into this
> >
> > system-settings submenu. This is the settings submenu that comes up
> > when you long-select the System menu in the main men
On 16/08/2011 8:55 AM, "sideral" wrote:
>By default, options for System functions belong into this
> system-settings submenu. This is the settings submenu that comes up
> when you long-select the System menu in the main menu.
You're aware this menu is a duplicate of Settings - General Settings -
On 15/08/11 23:13, Mike Giacomelli wrote:
> Thomas Martitz writes:
> > Am 15.08.2011 12:33, schrieb sideral:
>
> >> I agree with most of what [Hayden] said, but I'd prefer to discuss
> >> the best placement of the Time & Date menu and the sleep timer
> >> separately from the present patch
> Thomas Martitz writes:
> > Am 15.08.2011 12:33, schrieb sideral:
>
> >> I agree with most of what [Hayden] said, but I'd prefer to discuss
> >> the best placement of the Time & Date menu and the sleep timer
> >> separately from the present patch.
> >
> > Perhaps it would be a good idea to dis
Thomas Martitz writes:
> Am 15.08.2011 12:33, schrieb sideral:
>> I agree with most of what [Hayden] said, but I'd prefer to discuss
>> the best placement of the Time & Date menu and the sleep timer
>> separately from the present patch.
>
> Perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss this first th
On 16/08/2011 7:18 AM, "Dave Hooper" wrote:
>
>
> > FWIW, we might as well rename the "System" menu to "About" once we have
> > done this. This seems to be the name that most other programs use for a
> > menu with that kind of contents. Any thoughts?
> >
>
> That sounds like a good idea to me. It'
> FWIW, we might as well rename the "System" menu to "About" once we have
> done this. This seems to be the name that most other programs use for a
> menu with that kind of contents. Any thoughts?
>
That sounds like a good idea to me. It's maybe a bit odd to have Debug under
About, but not really
> Its speculation of course but I'd be reasonably willing to guess that
> most new users would actually expect Time & Date to be in Settings,
> moving it out would also leave the System menu for "System-esque" things
> that a normal user most likely won't touch in the course of normal
> operation (
On 16/08/2011 2:09 AM, "Thomas Martitz" wrote:
>
> Am 15.08.2011 16:00, schrieb Menachem:
>
>>
>>
>> do you then have to re-cancel the current timer every time you start the
player again?
>>
>>
>
> Only if you enabled the "start sleep timer on boot" setting.
>
> Can anyone enlight me why one would
Am 15.08.2011 16:00, schrieb Menachem:
do you then have to re-cancel the current timer every time you start
the player again?
Only if you enabled the "start sleep timer on boot" setting.
Can anyone enlight me why one would want to enable that?
Best regards.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 15.08.2011 15:17, schrieb Menachem:
>
>
>> What about adding one new setting that let you chose whether you wanted to
>> persistently set the last sleep value every time you turned on the player.
>> If you chose to activate that setting,
Am 15.08.2011 15:17, schrieb Menachem:
What about adding one new setting that let you chose whether you
wanted to persistently set the last sleep value every time you turned
on the player. If you chose to activate that setting, whatever the
last sleep timer was set to would start again when t
B"H
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> In fact, I thought about it a bit more and also came up with a proposal
> that makes sense to me. It is similar to the first in FS#10849, except that
> I find the "Sleep Timer Duration" item redundant. What I would prefer is to
> have t
Am 15.08.2011 12:33, schrieb sideral:
Let me respond to three messages in this thread in just one reply.
Alex Parker writes:
Can't we think of some way of having all the sleep timer stuff
together?
That's a good question. Right now almost all functions have their
configuration sitting in th
On 15/08/11 12:33, sideral wrote:
Thomas Jarosch writes:
How about this one:
*** Settings> General> System> Sleep timer ***
Default sleep timer duration (time)
Start at boot (yes/no)
*** System> (Date& Time) menu ***
"Start sleep timer" -> Brings back the old sleep timer selector
with
> Hayden Pearce writes:
>
> > I genuinely believe there is a valid argument for pulling the Date &
> > Time menu out of System and putting it in Settings. [...]
> > IIRC both Thomas and sideral agreed that moving Time & Date into
> > Settings would make this patch a lot easier on the user when I
>
Let me respond to three messages in this thread in just one reply.
Alex Parker writes:
> Can't we think of some way of having all the sleep timer stuff
> together?
That's a good question. Right now almost all functions have their
configuration sitting in the (separate) Settings menu. The pres
On 15/08/2011 7:22 PM, "Thomas Jarosch" wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 14. August 2011 23:05:40 Alex Parker wrote:
> > On 14/08/11 22:41, sideral wrote:
> > > That won't work so nicely as the two menu entries you suggest to merge
> > > live in two different menus. I'd prefer to keep it that way because
>
On Sunday, 14. August 2011 23:05:40 Alex Parker wrote:
> On 14/08/11 22:41, sideral wrote:
> > That won't work so nicely as the two menu entries you suggest to merge
> > live in two different menus. I'd prefer to keep it that way because
> > starting the timer is not a persistent setting and hence
Moving "Time & Date" out of the System menu would allow for keeping these
menu items together…
System is a silly (and not in keeping with the "persistent settings go in
"Settings") place to have this (Time & Date) anyway IMO.
[Saint]
On 15/08/2011 9:07 AM, "Alex Parker" wrote:
> On 14/08/11 22:41
On 14/08/11 22:41, sideral wrote:
That won't work so nicely as the two menu entries you suggest to merge
live in two different menus. I'd prefer to keep it that way because
starting the timer is not a persistent setting and hence doesn't belong
into the Settings menu.
sideral
This sounds ra
Thomas Jarosch writes:
> I'm testing that exact patch since yesterday. The only big difference
> in usage (for me) is the persistent sleep timer value: Until now I
> always chose a value depending on how sleepy I was. So it was either
> 15 minutes or 30 minutes.
Thanks for your comments, Thomas
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing your idea.
Alex Parker writes:
> [...] If I understand correctly, there are now three options:
>
> Duration (time)
> Start at boot (yes/no)
> Start/Stop
In the present patch, the first two things are options (found in the
Settings menu), the latter is a function (fo
On 14/08/11 01:05, sideral wrote:
Fellow Rockbox hackers,
I'd like to commit FS#10849,
I haven't tried the patch, but think it sounds sensible in general. If I
understand correctly, there are now three options:
Duration (time)
Start at boot (yes/no)
Start/Stop
What about condensing that to
Am Sonntag, 14. August 2011, 01:05:38 schrieb sideral:
> I'd like to commit FS#10849, which introduces two new features for the
> sleep timer: The sleep duration is now a setting, so it's persistent
> across reboots and doesn't have to be set each time the sleep timer is
> used;
I'm testing that e
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 01:05:38AM +0200, sideral wrote:
> I'd like to commit FS#10849
I don't use the sleep timer myself (in fact, I think I never even tried
it), so I'm not sure how much my opinion is worth here.
I think that the patch adds real functionality that's hard to achieve by
other (ex
Fellow Rockbox hackers,
I'd like to commit FS#10849, which introduces two new features for the
sleep timer: The sleep duration is now a setting, so it's persistent
across reboots and doesn't have to be set each time the sleep timer is
used; and an option to engage the sleep timer on each boot. Th
66 matches
Mail list logo
