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
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
