FYI Master builds right now, even for actual hardware. (It doesn't run so
well due to a bunch of closed-source libraries they can't release.. but
thats just more of the "we'll worry about licensing later" mess.)
At a minimum, whats out there now is:
Master - cutting edge, community tree (although so far only googs can
commit) - currently (as of a couple days ago) builds fine for g1/adp1 using
the directions on android.com
Master w/ tag "release-1.0" - the tree as it was kinda sorta when rc29/rc30
were peeled off, but not really. Doesn't build.
Cupcake - laggy internal cutting edge, synced from perforce. still broken
build, and behind master.
Perforce - cutting edge private tree, occasionally synced to cupcake
Product - adp1/g1 tree, stable, tested, running, never to see the light of
day other than as blob updates ('open source' or not..)
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Muthu Ramadoss <[email protected]>wrote:
> Google has their own internal repo which they haven't synced it up with the
> public repo. Its all a bit confusing now since both master and the cupcake
> branch seems to be broken now.
>
> take care,
> Muthu Ramadoss.
>
> http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
> http://androidrocks.googlecode.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Its apache-licensed. Just pretend that the upstream is 'equal' and they
>> created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, thats what
>> happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they merged it to
>> their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making it forever
>> unreachable.)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But a group of OHA members made the first deployment where a number of
>>> apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd party
>>> diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.).
>>>
>>> So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, why are the OHA
>>> claiming it's one of features of an Android system?
>>>
>>> Al.
>>>
>>> Muthu Ramadoss wrote:
>>> > "All Applications are created Equal"
>>> >
>>> > holds true for all applications created on top of Application
>>> Framework.
>>> >
>>> > It does not mean that the applications created will be open or free!
>>> >
>>> > take care,
>>> > Muthu Ramadoss.
>>> >
>>> > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
>>> > http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush <[email protected]
>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The adage that all applications are created equal cannot hold true
>>> in
>>> > a real commercial rollout by a carrier.
>>> >
>>> > Carriers would want to achieve service differentiation and a
>>> > competitive edge over their peers. So they would always want to
>>> lock
>>> > down some apps to provide them to only their customers.
>>> > If all applications would be equal, what value proposition will
>>> they
>>> > show to their customers ?
>>> >
>>> > So i think, that this statement of application equality does not
>>> hold
>>> > good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the carriers wont
>>> > tolerate it !
>>> >
>>> > Aayush
>>> >
>>> > Muthu Ramadoss wrote:
>>> > > I guess "All applications are created equal" will hold true when
>>> > you roll
>>> > > out your own custom Android implementation. If we consider the G1
>>> > > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is going to
>>> > lock down a lot
>>> > > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important enough to be
>>> > locked down for
>>> > > various reasons.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > take care,
>>> > > Muthu Ramadoss.
>>> > >
>>> > > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914
>>> > > http://androidrocks.googlecode.com - Android Tutorial.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected]
>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Debate on the policy is another (probably lengthy) discussion,
>>> > the fact
>>> > > > is that the policy exists and because of that all apps are not
>>> > equal as
>>> > > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are created equal"
>>> > doesn't
>>> > > > hold up.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Al.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Shane Isbell wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton
>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> > > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > They would need stretch that somewhat and define the
>>> dialler
>>> > > > > application
>>> > > > > as non-core for that to work in relation to the block on
>>> > third party
>>> > > > > diallers calling emergency services.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If there is a
>>> > hostile app,
>>> > > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging the system,
>>> > people
>>> > > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the other crap you
>>> > give
>>> > > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will fall out.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Shane
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > ======
>>> > > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
>>> > > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp
>>> House,
>>> > > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and
>>> not
>>> > > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates,
>>> > or it's
>>> > > > subsidiaries.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ======
>>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
>>> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
>>> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
>>>
>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
>>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
>>> subsidiaries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
