Android-platform is the list for discussing developing the SDK. This list is specifically about developing against the SDK.
Al. P.S. The main reason I don't do firmware dev is because I bought a G1 at launch (before the ADP1 was announced) and I'm not going to spend out over $500 to get a ADP1 shipped to the UK just to do something that won't pay my mortgage :). -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Simon Depiets Sent: 24 March 2009 18:22 To: [email protected] Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK? 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 <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Jean-Baptiste Queru >>> Sent: 24 March 2009 15:39 >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Not if you stay anonymous (hint, hint) ;-) >>> >> >>> >> On Mar 23, 7:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous >>> >> <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> " Someone from Google? " makes it official i guess :D >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, AndroidApp >>> >>> <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>> > > <[email protected]> >>> >>> > 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 [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-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
