Support and General Use > Theming and Appearance Customization

ANNOUNCEMENT: Album Art now committed to svn

<< < (3/6) > >>

Mikerman:
Thank you for the helpful comments and I certainly will re-edit in the future, so as to avoid causing issue (altho in my humble belief, it still causes confusion as to matters and what has been changed--and I did not proceed so as to intentionally ignore the rules).

Again, and getting back to the topic (which I thought was broad enough to cover my inquiry), am looking forward to responses to my original post, for the development of WPSs with this great feature!  (I also am happy to start a separate thread to cover them, should that be preferred.)

Llorean:
In regard to those extra letters, I have no clue, and wondered about them myself, but I think they were accidentally added or left on the page from the unsupported patch, as they aren't there any more.

pixelma:
I asked Nico_P in IRC what the [d|i|s] means and he said it had to do with the scaling that was in the original patch. As a result he removed it from the wiki because this is not implemented in the official version yet which the wiki is supposed to describe.

tdtooke:

--- Quote from: NicolasP on November 11, 2007, 02:45:37 PM ---The scrolling margins patch (FS#2954) should be dropped in favour of linuxstb's simpler version (FS#8135), which has far better chances of being committed.

--- End quote ---
I'm in 100% agreement with you, I just don't want 2954 closed.  As it stands now (as of 10 minutes before this post) it extends the recent %m commit to function as you committed it and also as the old scroll-margins worked.  For the time being I think it fills a void as there will always be people who want to define a right margin.  And on a happier note I must say I'm completely thrilled with your latest commits!  Amiconn commiting ipod brightness control was pretty cool too!

Llorean:
The whole point of the patch tracker is for patches seeking inclusion in Rockbox.

If a patch will never, ever be included in Rockbox, why should it be left open to encourage people to work on something that is unwanted, rather than closed with the (somewhat slim) hope that the people wanting that feature will instead go about doing it a way that can be included?

To me at least, leaving a patch open on the tracker that we don't want specifically makes the tracker a means of supporting unsupported builds. It encourages people to post any patch, even "NoDo patches", that users may want to use, so that they can be developed for these unsupported builds, and any patch that is closed as "rejected" can become a controversy because of inconsistent policies on when a patch is rejected if it's not simply "we have decided not to include it in the official build."

For consistency's sake, if a patch isn't to be included, it should be rejected. It's the Rockbox tracker, not the "Everyone's build's patch tracker."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page