Björn Stenberg wrote:
> It still feels like a "Rockbox emulator", rather than a full-blown android
> music player app.
After I posted this, Hayden Pearce urged me to try his cabbie theme
modification (FS#12254). And after seeing that, I am much more optimistic than
when I wrote the above.
There
- Original Message -
From: Hayden Pearce
To: Rockbox development
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Releasing the android app (was: The next release version)
It's ugly because my theme work isn't committed yet ;)
[Saint]
It's a bit clunky in the w
: Re: Releasing the android app (was: The next release version)
> >
> > Furthermore, every guy I installed Rockbox for liked it. The UI isn't as
> horrible
> > as some people think and the features are just awesome, so I don't see
> why
> > we should
On 26 September 2011 23:05, Amaury Pouly wrote:
> Whether immature or not (fwiw, I disagree), we don't even have current
>> builds do promote it to unstable, for a broader audience and perhaps new
>> contributors.
>
> I agree with this point: if we don't provide a RaaA build, there will
> likely
> -Original Message-
> From: rockbox-dev-boun...@cool.haxx.se [mailto:rockbox-dev-
> boun...@cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of Thomas Martitz
> Sent: 26 September 2011 10:44
> To: Rockbox development
> Subject: Re: Releasing the android app (was: The next release version)
>
>
> Whether immature or not (fwiw, I disagree), we don't even have current
> builds do promote it to unstable, for a broader audience and perhaps new
> contributors.
I agree with this point: if we don't provide a RaaA build, there will likely
be too few people testing it to get real feedback. Furt
Am Mo, 26.09.2011, 11:22 schrieb Björn Stenberg:
> Thomas Martitz wrote:
>> Then 4.0 is vaporware. At least I see no movement towards an RaaA
>> release.
>> It still needs actions from the swedes (current build signing, market
>> account).
>
> I disagree. It is not the paperwork that is holding the
Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Then 4.0 is vaporware. At least I see no movement towards an RaaA release.
> It still needs actions from the swedes (current build signing, market
> account).
I disagree. It is not the paperwork that is holding the android app from the
Market. It is the fact that it is sti
Am Mo, 26.09.2011, 10:25 schrieb Marcin Bukat:
> I also tend to think upcoming release should be 3.10. I think 4.0
> should be reserved for RaaA. Maybe RaaA is not revolution from the
> technical point o view but it may have HUGE impact on our userbase.
>
> Marcin
>
Then 4.0 is vaporware. At least
> Alex Parker wrote:
> > a) 3.10 or 4.0
> > b) why?
>
> a) 3.10
> b) Because the user-facing changes are not big enough to warrant 4.0.
>
+1
+1
Bryan Childs
UC Consultant
RBS Global Banking & Markets
Bankside 2 & 3, 90-100 Southwark Street, London, SE1 0SW, GB
Office: +44 20 3361 2331 | Mo
I also tend to think upcoming release should be 3.10. I think 4.0
should be reserved for RaaA. Maybe RaaA is not revolution from the
technical point o view but it may have HUGE impact on our userbase.
Marcin
On Sep 26, 2011 9:20 AM, "Björn Stenberg" wrote:
>
> Alex Parker wrote:
> > a) 3.10 or 4.0
> > b) why?
>
> a) 3.10
> b) Because the user-facing changes are not big enough to warrant 4.0.
I agree with that too. Even the playback rework for voicing is, in my
opinion, not a major new architectural c
Alex Parker wrote:
> a) 3.10 or 4.0
> b) why?
a) 3.10
b) Because the user-facing changes are not big enough to warrant 4.0.
--
Björn
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Parker"
To: "Michael Sevakis" ; "Rockbox development"
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: The next release version
I wasn't actually talking about delaying the release at all, just whether
it sh
On 25/09/11 23:50, Michael Sevakis wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mike Giacomelli
To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: The next release version
Would prefer to stay at 3.x until we're ready to release the app on
the android market.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Giacomelli
To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: The next release version
Would prefer to stay at 3.x until we're ready to release the app on the
android market.
Mike
Things seem awfully shaken up righ
2011/9/25 Jonas Häggqvist :
> > +1. 2.x->3.x was when SWCODEC was added (and initially 3.0 was planned for
> > Archos+Iriver Hxx0 only IIRC). I'd say the addition of (releasable) Raaa is
> > on the same level.
> >
>
Would prefer to stay at 3.x until we're ready to release the app on the androi
2011/9/25 Jonas Häggqvist :
> +1. 2.x->3.x was when SWCODEC was added (and initially 3.0 was planned for
> Archos+Iriver Hxx0 only IIRC). I'd say the addition of (releasable) Raaa is
> on the same level.
>
>From a technical point of view, RaaA is a pretty uninteresting target.
SWCODEC brought an e
On 25-09-2011 02:20, Paul Louden wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
3 - no other target has caused a major bump so why should android
be different?
I do agree 3.10 looks a bit funny. But on the issue of Android being
different from the other targets, it's more
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> 3 - no other target has caused a major bump so why should android
> be different?
I do agree 3.10 looks a bit funny. But on the issue of Android being
different from the other targets, it's more the transition from
"Rockbox as a firmwa
pretty arbitrary anyway
On 25 September 2011 09:59, Alex Parker wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> So the next release is due towards the end of October, and in the past there
> has been some discussion as to whether the version number should be 3.10 or
> 4.0. Myself I lean towards 3.10, and keep
a) 3.10
b) because history says that whatever I suggest will be outright rejected
On 25 September 2011 09:59, Alex Parker wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> So the next release is due towards the end of October, and in the past there
> has been some discussion as to whether the version number sh
I think we're still at 3.X at the moment too. I don't think this
version brings anything worth increasing the major version number.
Hi guys,
So the next release is due towards the end of October, and in the past
there has been some discussion as to whether the version number should
be 3.10 or 4.0. Myself I lean towards 3.10, and keeping 4.0 for e.g. an
Android release but I am not too determined either way.
What do
On 10/12/2010 9:28 AM, Marcin Bukat wrote:
That's exactly my point - version number is to place particular
release in some chronological order nothing more.
This is patently not true. If chronological order were the only purpose,
there would be no reason not to just use the release date, muc
2010/10/12 Paul Louden :
> Meanwhile, if we go from 3.7 to 3.8 to
> 3.9 to 4.0 to 4.1, the version number no longer communicates anything but
> sequence and we may as well have just used the SVN revision of the release
> in the first place.
That's exactly my point - version number is to place part
On 10/12/2010 3:02 AM, Marcin Bukat wrote:
I don't like discontinuity in release numbering. For me such practice
is pure marketing.
Marcin Bukat
Release numbering is pure marketing in the first place. "3.7" doesn't
mean anything useful other than "it came after any number lower than this."
2010/10/12 Frank Gevaerts :
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Dave Chapman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The "Release 3.7, freeze on Monday" thread seems to have been hijacked,
>> so to bring the subject up again, are we freezing now?
>
> I think we should, yes.
>
>> I'm also trying to catch up on
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Dave Chapman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The "Release 3.7, freeze on Monday" thread seems to have been hijacked,
> so to bring the subject up again, are we freezing now?
I think we should, yes.
> I'm also trying to catch up on Rockbox developments over the past fe
Hi,
The "Release 3.7, freeze on Monday" thread seems to have been hijacked,
so to bring the subject up again, are we freezing now?
I'm also trying to catch up on Rockbox developments over the past few
months, and am wondering if the theme breakage is a reason to bump to 4.0?
I've read the e
30 matches
Mail list logo
