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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
