Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion

pictureflow

<< < (6/7) > >>

kcrimson:
It surprises me that there's no "roadmap" which gives us the direction of development of the plugin. Is any type of additional playback support even on the radar for the future? It seems that the developers ARE interested in polishing the plugin, as witnessed by continuing development of it as recent as yesterday.

Llorean:
There's no "roadmap" because this is entirely volunteer work. People do what they're interested in, when they're interested in it.

Would you rather people spend time writing roadmaps that never happen, or actually spending their time doing stuff when they have spare time and the inclination?

kcrimson:

--- Quote ---There's no "roadmap" because this is entirely volunteer work. People do what they're interested in, when they're interested in it.

Would you rather people spend time writing roadmaps that never happen, or actually spending their time doing stuff when they have spare time and the inclination?
--- End quote ---

Perhaps you'd like to explain how any organization - volunteer, for profit or publically funded - goes about their business without any direction? Perhaps you and I do not agree on an idea of what the "roadmap" I mentioned actually defines. I'm describing a general idea of what the plugin will and won't do - nothing specific that needs to be checked and redrawn on a regular basis.

I'd rather YOU spend time considering that questions like your last are nothing but rhetoric - intended to enforce your own standing within the Rochbox community. As a disseminator of information from the developers to the non-developer user community your method leaves much to be desired. Instead of posing such a question, perhaps you should have replied something like - "While the Rockbox developer community communicates through multiple channels and shares general ideas and channels their efforts toward a common goal, there is no consensus... (or something similar)."  Your question was both accusatory (in pointing to my (WRONGLY ASSUMED) failed comprehension of the nature of the Rockbox effort, and at the same time lacked any further insight. It was posts from you that convinced me to unsubscribe from the mailing list - it seems you double your efforts in the forums.

Chronon:
If you believe that your use of the term "roadmap" was cause for confusion then it's valid to try to clarify what you meant.  I admit that in my mind a roadmap brings with it notions of a timeline for specific goals and an outline of the work necessary to realize them.  I would, similarly, respond that such things don't really appear to factor into the workflow for developers here.  Since you apparently meant something less formal, it's fair to clarify that.  However, I think it does not serve any positive aims to make discussion here personal.  Your interpretation of someone else's motives are subjective and personal and don't serve as a good basis for shared discussion.

Llorean:
Something you're also missing is that this isn't an "organization." For the vast majority of those working on it, it's a hobby. They work on what they feel is interesting.

The closest one could come to a roadmap would be a general "If it can be done in a way that wouldn't harm the overall user experience, these features for the plugin would not be objected to if someone decided to write them." But that's not a roadmap, nor even plans. That's just a general "we probably wouldn't reject patches that did this."

Considering there's a nearly infinite list of features that could probably met the criteria of "if done well, we wouldn't reject them" it's not worth much to try and sit down and list even a significant number.

Instead, if you're interested in working on an idea, say "I would like to do this, can anyone say whether it's likely to be accepted if I complete it?"

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page