Database Info

Organizing the roms

Hey, can we possibly organize the ROMs in this section, if not in all of XDA already.
Make a thread and organize based on the base ROM, or based on the Developer or something. Its just so cluttered.
The way androidspin does it is great. I have webdev experience and am willing to help out.
Sorry if this is in the wrong section, but since it is related to ROM development, I thought it was relevant.

We need to have categories that separate rom types so eclair wont be in the same place as hero and we need mods or think tanks to be in its on sub forum too.

for me that is great idea

Too bad it won't ever happen. Seems like XDA doesn't give a crap about anything anymore...

I've been wishing that they were organized by types, (eclair, hero, etc.) for a long time now too.

+1 for organising by 'Flavour'

why reinvent the wheel when andriodspin does what you're looking for (including link to xda release threads)..?
further, maintaining a list like that (especially in vbulletin thread format) would be a huge chore that would require intimate knowlege of each and every rom that gets posted.
I used to maintain a list of ROMs in my stickied thread until there were more than a handful.
all that being said...if you want to maintain such a list, more power to you. I'm sure people would find it useful.

Agreed,
The problem is some of the roms here tend to get missed by Android spin, especially if they have just been released, or the dev does not use AS.
Also, this would be very beneficial to WinMo users not just Android users.
I am throwing the idea out there hoping that people are in agreement, and we can get XDA to allow us to start working on.
Rather than yet another thread, it would make sense to have a dedicated ROMS page.

alapapa said:
why reinvent the wheel when andriodspin does what you're looking for (including link to xda release threads)..?
further, maintaining a list like that (especially in vbulletin thread format) would be a huge chore that would require intimate knowlege of each and every rom that gets posted.
I used to maintain a list of ROMs in my stickied thread until there were more than a handful.
all that being said...if you want to maintain such a list, more power to you. I'm sure people would find it useful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Q4T.
Besides, if a DEV doesn't bother to post to sites that have lists like AS, who's fault is that, but the DEV.

Early reports on the last Woot! sale - they might be shipping with 1.2-4349

1800 devices were sold this week, and I would expect that a good portion of those users will be headed here.
Again, this is just an early report from one user who just got their device, so it could be a one-off. But I would go on the assumption that they are all getting 4349, to play it safe.
To the moderators:
I would highly recommend that the development area be altered ASAP to break up the 1.1 and 1.2 ROMs. I would also recommend that a disclaimer be added to all 1.1 ROMs, including anything CM7 based, that specific steps need to be taken if a 4349 user attempts to use these ROMs. I have been asking for this since April, and I am respectively asking again.
Again, this could just be a one-off user with 4349. But given that one Woot! user has it, and new TigerDirect users have 4349 as well gives me the impression that this could be the norm for all new devices. And I think it's in XDA's best interests to prepare the development site accordingly, given what we know about 1.1 down-leveling.
To the 1.1 devs / modders:
Same request. From someone who had the opposite occur with TNT Lite 5, this is a potentially devastating situation if these users flash your 1.1 based ROM.
To new Woot! users:
You should read this first, please: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1035983 Don't jump into modding until you have confirmed what stock version you have, please.

I agree, If we can prevent a user from flashing the wrong ROM due to their bootloader, we will save many users from needless grief and reduce the number of posts for help to those who really need it.
Roebeet, sure glad to see you back posting and helping...

brookfield said:
I agree, If we can prevent a user from flashing the wrong ROM due to their bootloader, we will save many users from needless grief and reduce the number of posts for help to those who really need it.
Roebeet, sure glad to see you back posting and helping...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I picked the right week to do so.

This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.

Agreed. The SD development sections are much easier to navigate after being segregated into 1.1 and 1.2

jerdog said:
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't this a pretty basic usability issue? This would help new users, but more fundamentally it's just good organization, no?

jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I kinda disagree with this statement. In other sub-forums on XDA, they require all posts in the dev section to follow guidelines on the title at the very least. Simply requiring that all posts in that section be classified the same way is all that is needed (with all the disclaimers and everything).
Example:
[Rom][1.2BL] Uber Fake Rom!!1?! (Now with extra frosted flakes) - [1.0 - 6/10/11)

Tostino said:
I kinda disagree with this statement. In other sub-forums on XDA, they require all posts in the dev section to follow guidelines on the title at the very least. Simply requiring that all posts in that section be classified the same way is all that is needed (with all the disclaimers and everything).
Example:
[Rom][1.2BL] Uber Fake Rom!!1?! (Now with extra frosted flakes) - [1.0 - 6/10/11)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And that's a good statement - if you notice those posting actual development ROMs/MODs already follow this as a rule of thumb. But it is not an XDA requirement. It has been suggested to Devs that they follow this anyways.

Clean up on "Isle 9" please. I think being structured by bootloader is a great idea. Especially since there are projects now other then Android being worked on. And in the future when Windows 8 is released.

jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not simply break out the ROM section, rather than put more of the onus on the developers? The developers already have enough to do with developing and will in all likelihood already advise which bootloader to use. Make it a little easier for them.
We all know that what we do is at our own risk; all that is being asked is to break the ROM section into a 1.1 and 1.2 subforum.

jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree. The breaking into a 1.1 and a 1.2 sub-forum of the development section seems pretty much critical to avoid any unnecessary headache for XDA gTab users. Saying what you said above is like throwing a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and saying: "You accept the risks of your own actions, so go ahead and start driving and we'll see where this leads us."
You wouldn't do that under any circumstance, so you provide "buffers" (training, mentorship, test driving, books, etc) which in our case would be the sub-forums separating boot loader types to attempt to put forth a friendly effort to help users avoid a headache.
The sub-forums would look something like this:
Android Development:
General Development (CWM, radios, tools, app dev, etc)
1.1 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
1.2 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
Not putting forth the effort to at least provide a somewhat protected atmosphere for the XDA gTab users is negligence. I have been a member of the XDA community in an observer/user fashion for much longer than my membership reflects. From my experience with XDA, I have noticed a trend on the gTab community in more recent times that is not reflected on the other device forums I have utilized (HD2, Tilt, Tilt2, G2, G1, MyTouch, and a few more that I cannot remember). The vast majority of those kept higher and more enforced standards than the gTab forums have lately, but still looked out for the users by putting certain "buffers" and preventative measures into place to try to keep users from messing up their pricey hardware due to negligence.
Yes, negligence on the user's part is their fault by not following some instructions laid out for them, but it doesn't mean that the leadership can't at a minimum provide some buffers out of a good faith gesture. I hope you don't take this in a disrespectful way or anything, just voicing my observation on things I've seen over the past few months and figured as the gTab moderator (even though you're selling yours), you'd probably want to know what the community members of your device forum are observing.
Thanks for your hard work, but this is something that's inevitable and should not be avoided or curtailed for a later date.

jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense, but speaking as a non-1337 who's been dealing with 1337s for years, this post sounds like the typical 1337 attitude.
Dividing up the development section into 1.1 and 1.2 will save many headaches. Noone is here to stroke anyone's ego as a 1337. We're just trying to make the process go as smoothly as possible here.

flipovich said:
I disagree. The breaking into a 1.1 and a 1.2 sub-forum of the development section seems pretty much critical to avoid any unnecessary headache for XDA gTab users. Saying what you said above is like throwing a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and saying: "You accept the risks of your own actions, so go ahead and start driving and we'll see where this leads us."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're not talking about putting people behind a car. We're talking about people accessing a forum that is for development. Any usage of the forum and the developed solutions presented is at your own risk.
flipovich said:
You wouldn't do that under any circumstance, so you provide "buffers" (training, mentorship, test driving, books, etc) which in our case would be the sub-forums separating boot loader types to attempt to put forth a friendly effort to help users avoid a headache.
The sub-forums would look something like this:
Android Development:
General Development (CWM, radios, tools, app dev, etc)
1.1 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
1.2 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not a precedent at XDA nor would it be approved. There is some segmentation under a device but that is by OS - not by a bootloader in an OS.
flipovich said:
Not putting forth the effort to at least provide a somewhat protected atmosphere for the XDA gTab users is negligence. I have been a member of the XDA community in an observer/user fashion for much longer than my membership reflects. From my experience with XDA, I have noticed a trend on the gTab community in more recent times that is not reflected on the other device forums I have utilized (HD2, Tilt, Tilt2, G2, G1, MyTouch, and a few more that I cannot remember). The vast majority of those kept higher and more enforced standards than the gTab forums have lately, but still looked out for the users by putting certain "buffers" and preventative measures into place to try to keep users from messing up their pricey hardware due to negligence.
Yes, negligence on the user's part is their fault by not following some instructions laid out for them, but it doesn't mean that the leadership can't at a minimum provide some buffers out of a good faith gesture. I hope you don't take this in a disrespectful way or anything, just voicing my observation on things I've seen over the past few months and figured as the gTab moderator (even though you're selling yours), you'd probably want to know what the community members of your device forum are observing.
Thanks for your hard work, but this is something that's inevitable and should not be avoided or curtailed for a later date.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not taken as disrespectful at all. And whether or not I own the device has nothing to do with the level of effort put into the forum. It is not the role of a moderator to police the information and provide checks and balances for the users. It is the role of the developer or poster to do that. Moderators are here to keep threads on topic, keep users from trolling, cleanup spam, etc.
Developers should mark their projects as to the relevance for the user - i.e. [BL1.2] or whatever. It's important for users to be held responsible for their actions and we are a development community - not a hand-holding community.
It is also the role of users to report posts that they see as problematic to the OP and if the OP doesn't make changes then you can bring the moderators in to assist as appropriate. It's also the role of users to help keep things sorted by reporting posts that need moved elsewhere, etc. and to report those who are abusive so that they can be actioned.

My goal was not to ruffle feathers. I'm just stating my concerns and suggestions, whether they are feasible or not.
The newer 1.2 ROMs here on XDA seem to add these differences to their titles and first posts (as mentioned), but my concern is the older 1.1 ROMs, especially ones that were created before this new branch was released. For example, some of the CM7 based ROMs, and even CM7 itself, are not safe to use if you are flashing directly from 4349 stock. And I've also made suggestions in the Cyanagenmod forums, for the same reasons.

And I appreciate the suggestions and involvement. Thanks!

Thanks
I never heard of the g tablet before this week, but the TD Ebay deal was too good to pass up. I got one with 1.2-4349 on it. First thing I did was downgrade it thanks to the heads up info from this forum. With some reading was also able to put Veganginger on it. First attempt, it locked it up when rebooting after a successful install. But again, this forum was right on top of it. I followed the info for using nvflash and got back to a stock rom, ran clockwork again and installed Vegan no problem.
Not much to comment on the tablet itself yet, it just arrived yesterday, but so far its been fun just making the updates.
Just wanted to say thanks for all the info.

I've read through this thread and I do not believe a separate sub-forum is necessary. As such, I am closing this thread before the discussion becomes out of hand.
The differences between the Gtab versions lie in software alone. There is currently a method available to revert to 1.1 using nvflash in order to regain ROM compatibility with 1.1 ROMs. This, coupled with a simple warning as to which bootloader is compatible will ensure that everyone is satisfied.
In the past, we have only given separate development sub-forums for devices where a revision change is tied to a physical hardware change. As this is simply a (reversible) software difference, Jerdog has taken the correct approach by suggesting that the developers and moderators delineate which ROMs are compatible with which bootloaders.
Will Verduzco
XDA Senior Moderation Team

Section Guidelines -- READ THIS FIRST

This area is currently experimental and was set up by the XDA Administrators for development discussion. The idea in this section is for developers (not only recognized developers, but all developers) to have a place for discussion threads to "talk shop." What kind of talk? Some topics (that I'm making up as I type this) might include (and are certainly not limited to):
Overriding the power widget in the notification dropdown
Considerations of using gcc versions other than 4.4.3 for compiling the kernel
Exynos: discussion on working around the SOC wake from sleep delay
This isn't a Q&A forum. However, developers might kick off discussions with a question. The difference? This belongs in Q&A: "My phone wakes up slow, will it go faster if I take my sdcard out?" On the other hand, the following might belong in this new section: "Has anyone tried adjusting the mmc detection timeouts to see if there's an impact on the SOC wakeup delays?" The assumption here is that the person asking the latter question actually knows what a mmc detection timeout is, how they'd change it, and has started to play around with it before posting the question.
As well, this section is not for posting finished products or "advertising" of kernels, apps, etc. This section is to discuss the process, not for the end result.
The hope (at least my own hope) is that developers can discuss things here instead of resorting the various other methods of communication we've used. At the same time, newer developers and even non-developers can LEARN from the conversations and eventually participate.
Depending on the reception (and difficulty moderating, probably) this experiment will either be expanded for other device types, completely shut down as a failure, or adjusted. Obviously, if we developers don't use it, it might be considered a waste of time and dissolved.
This section will be very closely moderated by moderators who are also developers and non-development discussion will be harshly dealt with.
I REALLY hope this will encourage more devs to spend time with open communication. This is XDA-Developers. Let's do development.
Edit (Jan 8th, 2013):
Clarifying "finished products" above: The threads in this section will likely spawn off or involve distinct programs/kernels/firmwares , and once a distinct product results, a separate thread
outside of this section should be created for supporting that distinct product. A link to that thread is welcome in the source thread here, but this section shouldn't be used to contain support or release posts.
Take care
Gary

Thanks a lot for this. Had requested this for N7000 forums, but oh well
But I still feel we could benefit from such a thread there as well..

toxicthunder said:
Had requested this for N7000 forums...
...still feel we could benefit from such a thread there as well..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The N7000 is very similar to the N7100 - just lacking a pair of cores, but still the same processor arch and I think the n7000 is getting JB with the same TW layer as the n7100, isn't it?
It seems to be that most of "note II" dev level discussion would be very similar to the original note (as well as the SGS3) so I wouldn't complain if it was done here. Of course, the real moderators might disagree with me, so it might help if Someone Important would chime in.
Take care
Gary

garyd9 said:
The N7000 is very similar to the N7100 - just lacking a pair of cores, but still the same processor arch and I think the n7000 is getting JB with the same TW layer as the n7100, isn't it?
It seems to be that most of "note II" dev level discussion would be very similar to the original note (as well as the SGS3) so I wouldn't complain if it was done here. Of course, the real moderators might disagree with me, so it might help if Someone Important would chime in.
Take care
Gary
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
doesnt matter. We keep moving across both forums anyways.

garyd9 said:
The N7000 is very similar to the N7100 - just lacking a pair of cores, but still the same processor arch and I think the n7000 is getting JB with the same TW layer as the n7100, isn't it?
It seems to be that most of "note II" dev level discussion would be very similar to the original note (as well as the SGS3) so I wouldn't complain if it was done here. Of course, the real moderators might disagree with me, so it might help if Someone Important would chime in.
Take care
Gary
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they're still quite different to each other on the low hardware level even if they use the same IP blocks on the SoC, the SoC itself is basically built anew from what I understand. The non-existent 4212 is what you're describing there.
If you would have categorized these development forums I would have rather have them grouped on a per platform basis, and in that regard, as you know with my work, they are basically identical as they're based on this same "Midas" platform. This includes the S3 and all its variants, the Note 2 and all its variants, and the Galaxy Camera.

AndreiLux said:
If you would have categorized these development forums I would have rather have them grouped on a per platform basis, and in that regard, as you know with my work, they are basically identical as they're based on this same "Midas" platform. This includes the S3 and all its variants, the Note 2 and all its variants, and the Galaxy Camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree on some of the SGS3 variants, but NOT the qualcomm variants of the SGS3. The sgs3 (exynos) also has a very similar version of TW as well now. I have no idea about the camera...
There's a chance that the i9300 device might eventually link to here... Keep in mind that it's still an experimental section, and while there's no leeway for non-dev posts, there's surely of leeway for non-Note II dev stuff (at least when it's similar to the Note2)

Added to the OP:
Clarifying "finished products" above: The threads in this section will likely spawn off or involve distinct programs/kernels/firmwares , and once a distinct product results, a separate thread outside of this section should be created for supporting that distinct product. A link to that thread is welcome in the source thread here, but this section shouldn't be used to contain support or release posts.

[Q] is there a way to filter [ROM]s from XDA?

Hello all,
I've been visiting XDA since the first android phones. And I love seeing all the development made for phones. [MOD]s, [KERNEL]s and fixes/tweaks interest me. The trouble is, they get completely buried under threads about re-skinned stock/ CM / AOKP roms with a different kernel strapped underneath, and given a name containing "jelly", a biblical term, or a word describing speed. Most of these roms don't contribute actual development, and although they are nice for beginners or people who cant spend a day without flashing their phone. I don't care about them, and they obscure the actual development that is happening at XDA.
Is there a proper way of removing threads containing the [ROM] tag from XDA?

The_Double said:
Hello all,
I've been visiting XDA since the first android phones. And I love seeing all the development made for phones. [MOD]s, [KERNEL]s and fixes/tweaks interest me. The trouble is, they get completely buried under threads about re-skinned stock/ CM / AOKP roms with a different kernel strapped underneath, and given a name containing "jelly", a biblical term, or a word describing speed. Most of these roms don't contribute actual development, and although they are nice for beginners or people who cant spend a day without flashing their phone. I don't care about them, and they obscure the actual development that is happening at XDA.
Is there a proper way of removing threads containing the [ROM] tag from XDA?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the [ROM] tag is to differentiate it from a kernel, mod, recovery etc. and doesn't imply that it's any more than a compiled CM base with just a theme add-on.
I understand your frustration completely, but people have to get started somewhere don't they? And the ones that have the most replies, i.e. most popular, tend to stay near the top of the forum anyways.
It would be rather arbitrary I think to take off that tag or tell someone their ROM was not "real" because they just compiled CM and added someone else's kernel and themed it a bit, because technically it IS a custom ROM. What you might do to help that specific chef is post suggestions in his ROM for how to better improve it, and browsing through the various ROMs doesn't take all that long does it? I mean I use Nexus devices, so you know how many ROMs I have to choose from.
I can appreciate where you're coming from, but a custom ROM is a custom ROM, no matter how heavily or lightly modified it is, and to now infer something isn't modified enough from Source to be labeled [ROM] is too much a gray area I think to adequately and fairly decide.

That was my observation too, the more popular the item, the better chance it'll be near the top of the list.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app

What's "Original Development" and "Development"

I thought I had it figured out - Threads in "Original Development" were 4.2.* variations and "Development" threads were roms based on TouchWiz. But now I see all sorts of 4.2.* versions in the latter. Am I confused? What determines what goes where?

Vegasden said:
I thought I had it figured out - Threads in "Original Development" were 4.2.* variations and "Development" threads were roms based on TouchWiz. But now I see all sorts of 4.2.* versions in the latter. Am I confused? What determines what goes where?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The normal Development thread is for Stock rom based rom's and the Original is for not stock based rom's.
And 4.2 is just released as a test stock rom, so al the 4.2 mod's are based on that.

baggah said:
The normal Development thread is for Stock rom based rom's and the Original is for not stock based rom's.
And 4.2 is just released as a test stock rom, so al the 4.2 mod's are based on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This isn't exactly true.
Original development is any rom, kernel or mod that is under heavy development. An example is AOKP and CM10, they are built directly from source and it takes their own development. All kernels are built from a source, and each developer spends their own time tweaking and adding what they want, which is also heavy development.
Android development is simply taking an already prebuilt rom and tweaking it how the developer wants. This does not have to be touchwiz based, but any rom that uses a prebuilt rom. Every touchwiz variant is built off of a stock base, while various other roms use sources based on cm10, AOKP, paranoid android, etc. An example is the unofficial cm10 builds, the cm10 base is used and modified by a team of developers to change things they want to change. Since cm10 is premade in this case, it is correct for the unofficial thread being in android development despite it being an AOSP rom.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Taken from:
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/introducing-original-development-forums-for-more-devices/
"In order to give some guidance as to what belongs in each forum, we have prepared the below rough guidelines. These are not intended to be a complete “flow chart” of where something belongs, rather simply as an indication of how the system operates.
The following are most likely “Original Development”:
Official releases of highly original and upstream custom ROMs (built from the ground up with significant original development within them
Official releases/development of such original ROMs, perhaps posted by the maintainer or their nominated person.
A significant “first” in development for a device. Significant is subjective, but it is likely something which took considerable time/effort, and is generally accepted by developers to be significant and non-trivial.
Kernels which are built with beneficial changes that are not simply pulled from other kernels already available. Some element of original work is expected.
Tools and utilities with a clear purpose, and which are well-made, and useful to users. They should have an element of originality, either in purpose or through significant improvement in the means of operation.
Significant port of a ROM from one device to another, giving enhanced features or functionality to users of the target device. The port should be beneficial (a port from two virtually identical devices isn’t original development, it’s winzipping, and nobody really benefits from this, as it’s not development)
The following are most likely not “Original Development”, and should be posted in the “Android Development” subforum:
Your own “unofficial” stock build of your favourite original, source-built (or otherwise) ROM, particularly where an official or maintainer-endorsed thread exists already.
Minor derivatives of other ROMs with little or no changes, or ROMs consisting of “placebo” features as a main constituent or claim.
Renames or rebadges of others’ work – these don’t belong on XDA at all! Refer to rule 12 for more information.
Reposts of existing ROMs with small changes (i.e. kitchen work, such as adding a couple of apps). If you could realistically distribute your changes as an “addon pack” above and beyond a ROM, you should do so. In addition, your “ROM” would not be original development as it would be substantially identical to the original ROM.
A thread created with unrealistic goals that are clearly unachievable by those starting the thread. This is not intended to discourage high aspirations, rather to prevent threads porting Windows Phone 8 to the HTC Wallaby. This is pretty much common sense.
A ROM where a main or significant claim/feature is graphical changes to the user interface (ie. Themed ROM)
"