I think this is true,
can you tell us more than git commit messages tell us ?
do you intend to freeze android at some point, afterwards there will
only be bug fixes ?
do you WANT/do you NEED contributions, or is android open source but
with a proprietary-like development model ?
I have the impression that the community is very active around
android-oriented APPS, but not about android itself, maybe there's
also a problem with this mailing list being filled by requests on the
use of the SDK but not the development of the SDK, maybe there should
be a newsgroup dedicated to the android-dev, while this one seems more
like android-apps-dev.
These are just ideas and questions, not a troll at all.
2009/3/24 Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com>:
> Thats the sort of thing you do with alpha/beta/rc tags. And community
> participation.
>
> At some point, someone at google says "This is, barring problems, what we
> want to be 1.5. Now lets get it fixed." That can continue to happen
> privately between google and the carriers, and you keep periodically
> throwing releases to the community. This is how proprietary projects run.
> (Such as Symbian.)
>
> Or, Google can step up and actually release an open, community framework.
> Tags for alpha, beta, rc releases. Limited platform/configuration support in
> early stages. Community feedback, patches and bug reports throughout.
>
> Its cheaper, its faster, and you get fewer debacles like the g1 release
> patchfest. Even if the problems are deep inside the guru code, and there's
> no chance anyone else can fix it, you STILL gain by offloading the rest of
> the work. (Go read LKML for a while if you want -lots- of examples of that.
> Its not common for someone new to the project to make deep, guru-level fixes
> and patches. But it -is- common for newcomers to take care of their own
> bugs, make incremental improvements, help others and generally take load off
> the older members of the community.)
>
> And to skip ahead in the thread:
> {Quote Romainguy}
>
> So far, only the 1.1 SDK was released after the firmware (and not long
> after at that.) I don't understand the point of this discussion. We
> know that the SDK should be released before the bits are placed on
> actual devices and you know that as well. Since there's been no
> announcement of Cupcake availability on actual handsets, why all this
> fuss?
>
> Because in a -community- project, things such as timelines, release
> deadlines, requirements and so forth are public. In a proprietary project,
> they are generally private. (Although in the software/mobile space,
> generally much less private than Android.) Google bills this as a community
> project but treats it as a proprietary one. So "all the fuss" is because
> people went "Ooh! A community project! I'll help!" and got told to shove off
> until it gets released.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM, David Turner <di...@android.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm.. Despite the fact that this is what we want, we cannot make a
>> guarantee that the Cupcake SDK will be officially released strictly before
>> the platform is available on retail phones.
>>
>> Properly testing and packaging a SDK takes a lot of time, we may encounter
>> blocker bugs that have nothing to do with the software on the phone (e.g.
>> emulator crashes on platform X, ADB doesn't see emulator/devices on platform
>> Y, etc..). While we test the SDK frequently during development, doing the
>> necessary job to ensure that it's not going to break on the machines of all
>> people who download it from the official repository takes some time. And
>> then, the web site needs to be updated, especially the documentation needs
>> to reflect the new features / fixes / etc...
>>
>> But apart from that, I don't see a reason why this SDK would lag behind,
>> and as I said, we want it to be released ASAP.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> JBQ,
>>>
>>> Can you pass up the chain that the 'phrase
>>>
>>> "...you can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a
>>> cupcake-originated release as soon as possible."
>>>
>>> should be planned to be a point in time (hopefully a couple of weeks)
>>> before
>>> a carrier releases a device with it on.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're aware there's no bigger recipe for pain than when the
>>> first
>>> people to test applications on a new release of a platform are users who
>>> are
>>> trying out a new 'phone in a shop.
>>>
>>> Al.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: android-developers@googlegroups.com
>>> [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Baptiste
>>> Queru
>>> Sent: 24 March 2009 15:39
>>> To: android-developers@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the
>>> SDK?
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.1 was essentially a update of a few Google-proprietary bits on top of
>>> the
>>> same platform as 1.0.
>>> From the point of view of the Android platform (and therefore of the SDK
>>> as
>>> well), the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 are extremely minor.
>>>
>>> Cupcake is a branch name, it's not a released version. A future numbered
>>> release will be cut from the cupcake branch, but that product isn't ready
>>> yet, and therefore there can be no SDK yet.
>>>
>>> As cupcake contains significant platform changes compared to 1.0/1.1, you
>>> can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a cupcake-originated
>>> release as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> JBQ
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM, tauntz <tau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I just hope that this time the release date for the official SDK will
>>> > be BEFORE the update hits the masses. Not like it was with the 1.1SDK
>>> > - it was released way after 1.1 was released to end-users (the
>>> > argument from Google was something in the lines of "Hey, this is a
>>> > small release with no mayor changes so don't whine that you get it so
>>> > late"). Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that this is ridiculous..
>>> > One of the reasons why we don't have the official 1.5 (or cupcake or
>>> > however it will be officially called) SDK is that "It's not stable
>>> > enough" - fair enough but I really hope that you guys @ Google will
>>> > release it as soon as the code is stable enough (eg the code is tested
>>> > and ready to be released to the operators). That would give us a week
>>> > (maybe more) before the operators push it to the end-users.
>>> >
>>> > And don't come with the "you can build your own SDK from the
>>> > opensource tree if you want" - the last releases didn't come from the
>>> > opensource tree so even if I wanted, i couldn't build the SDK based on
>>> > the code that's shipped to the end-users. And even if this release
>>> > will actually come from the public tree, you can't expect all app
>>> > developers to build their own SDK, can you? We need an official SDK -
>>> > and we need it as soon as the tree is stable enough (and way before
>>> > it's pushed to the carriers/end-users)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tauno
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM, AndroidApp <zl25dre...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Not if you stay anonymous (hint, hint) ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mar 23, 7:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous
>>> >> <firewallbr...@googlemail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> " Someone from Google? " makes it official i guess :D
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, AndroidApp <zl25dre...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > Can someone capable just compile the SDK and post it online for
>>> >>> > everyone? Someone from Google? I dont really care if it's not
>>> >>> > official, i just dont want to download the source tree just to
>>> >>> > build the SDK, plus i need to do the tricks you mentioned to make
>>> >>> > it work on windows.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > On Mar 23, 1:11 pm, Marco Nelissen <marc...@android.com> wrote:
>>> >>> > > I certainly hope there aren't "a lot" of applications that use
>>> >>> > > reflection and private APIs.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:59 AM, zl25drexel
>>> >>> > > <zl25dre...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > > > Cupcake is coming, and as you know it will break a lot of apps
>>> >>> > > > in the market, those that use reflection & private api. So
>>> >>> > > > where is the Cupcake SDK/emulator for us to try our apps?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > > > I know we can download the source codes and build it, and I
>>> >>> > > > know apps wont break if they dont use undocumented api, blah
>>> >>> > > > blah blah, but we should get an official SDK/emulator for
>>> >>> > > > cupcake, dont you think, google?
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru
>>> Android Engineer, Google.
>>>
>>> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will
>>> likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further
>>> warning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>
--
Lliane aka Simon Depiets
Epita Promo 2011,42
http://www.lliane.com
A man is smoking with his girlfriend. She angers herself : "don't you
see the warning on the box ?!"
To which the man replies, "I am a programmer. I don't worry about
warnings. I only worry about errors."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
