Good morning/evening,
As discussed in the other thread we started regarding changes to our site, we promised that we would change things around a bit and one of them was the long standing Sharing Rule (also known as Rule 12). We have worked diligently with the administration and moderation teams to turn the one we had into something that would make developer's works a bit safer from stealing and other unsavory things.
This thread is not meant as an announcement but rather as an open discussion platform so that you (the members/developers) can weigh in before we write it in the stone tablet along with the rest of them. This will be an open discussion regarding this topic only. Also, unlike the previous thread, which was more of a TownHall type of thread, this one WILL be moderated. In other words,
* keep the thread on topic;
* Unrelated posts will be removed;
* Members not adhering to the above two will be disciplined.
We look forward to having good, meaningful feedback from all of you (otherwise we would have added this to the rules like we always do). We want to have good, positive change into this community to make it into a pleasant atmosphere for all.
Without further ado, I give you the beta draft of Rule 12
Rule 12 - Sharing
XDA-Developers is based on the principle of sharing to transmit knowledge. This is the cornerstone of our site. Our members and developers freely share their experience, knowledge, and finished works with the rest of the community to promote growth within the developer community, and to encourage those still learning to become better. There are those, however, who take advantage of this model and try to make personal gains from the hard work of others.
In order to preserve the delicate balance between sharing for the good of the community and blatant self-promotion, regular members and developers alike must understand (and agree) to the following:
12-1. Give credits where due - Credits and acknowledgements for using and releasing work which is based on someone else's work are an absolute must. Works reported to have no credits will be taken down until proper acknowledgements are added by the member in question;
12-2. Courtesy - While most of the work released on our site falls under the umbrella of open source, that is not the only license model being used by developers on xda-developers. In order to prevent problems, we ask that if you decide to base your work on someone else's that you check the license model being used (as it might not be as permissive as one may think);
12-3. Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
12-4. Developers can issue take down requests (by contacting the Dev Relations team) under the following circumstances:
- in-process builds start showing up on forums when the developer is not yet ready to release the work;
- cases in which another developer is too aggressively soliciting donations or misrepresenting the work (kanging);
- unofficial builds where an official build is already available;
In summary, we want people to have access to work and knowledge alike. Sharing is good and courtesy and ethics go a long way.
Developers with questions, comments, complaints, or concerns about our rules (or anything!) should send a PM to our Dev Relations team (efrant or sykopompos) or to a Moderator. We are here to help!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have at it!
Liking what I am seeing. Well done
zelendel said:
Liking what I am seeing. Well done
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey bud
Kinda miss seeing you around
Hope you are well....
I like it
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
BeansTown106 said:
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's clarify, for all those developers that have no issue with unofficial builds, they can stay. This would only come into play for those developers who do not wish to allow unofficial builds. A suggestion would be to add that to your OP (many just use a C&P OP with specifics for the device being posted) if you don't want unofficial builds posted.
We will not be removing unofficial builds just for the sake of removing them. The current procedure would be followed, where you would report the post using our Report post feature, making mention in the report that you do not allow unofficial builds of your work.
Much better than the old version. One suggestion: When mentioning licenses, make it explicit that distributing any GPL software (like Linux or TWRP) requires making the source code available.
BeansTown106 said:
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
_that said:
Much better than the old version. One suggestion: When mentioning licenses, make it explicit that distributing any GPL software (like Linux or TWRP) requires making the source code available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We did consider that. But there far too many different types of licenses out there to put them in writing. Thus, we needed a more general model. The gpl requirements still stand, not because of our rules but because of gpl itself. Our rules never have and never will truncate license requirements.
jerdog said:
Let's clarify, for all those developers that have no issue with unofficial builds, they can stay. This would only come into play for those developers who do not wish to allow unofficial builds. A suggestion would be to add that to your OP (many just use a C&P OP with specifics for the device being posted) if you don't want unofficial builds posted.
We will not be removing unofficial builds just for the sake of removing them. The current procedure would be followed, where you would report the post using our Report post feature, making mention in the report that you do not allow unofficial builds of your work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea thats what i figured, basically developers who allow unofficials can stay, and those who dont are now allowed to report for takedown
coal686 said:
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that seems fair enough and makes total sense
Don't see any flaws in there. Great job!
Sent from my YUNIQUE using XDA Labs
egzthunder1 said:
Hey bud
Kinda miss seeing you around
Hope you are well....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All is well. Hope they are with you as well.
I'm always around lol just wanted to step back for a bit while everything was sorted.
This revision to the rule is long in coming. And seems just about perfect. Ill post my thoughts more after my gf birthday dinner tonight.
coal686 said:
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Very well explained.
Hopefully this goes some way to help developers feel like they want to be here and have a bit more control of their work. Great initiative
Nice job!
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Jonny said:
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In that case, ROM developers can just start modifying the Apache license to say explicitly that unofficial builds of officially supported devices are not allowed to be distributed. Because they complied with the AOSP's Apache license when forking the work, they can set their own terms at will. I don't like that though because then every ROM is going to have their own license terms and it'd become a complete nightmare to work with.
Jonny said:
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the case, someone could post a GPL-licensed tool to circumvent payment in paid apps on XDA. So clearly 3rd party licenses do not outweigh forum rules.
The Flash said:
In that case, ROM developers can just start modifying the Apache license to say explicitly that unofficial builds of officially supported devices are not allowed to be distributed. Because they complied with the AOSP's Apache license when forking the work, they can set their own terms at will. I don't like that though because then every ROM is going to have their own license terms and it'd become a complete nightmare to work with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree totally, that would make our job a nightmare like you said. I don't think we are ever going to get a solution that makes everyone 100% happy but I think the new change is about the best we are ever going to get, it's great that it has been well received by both mods and devs
I'm not a dev so i know this doesn't apply to people like me, but can this be explained to me - I'm not clever enough to figure this out:
Rule 12-3 from your new beta draft states:
Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my previous post in that other thread:
Attention:
Redistribution, modifying files used within this project's file or integrating with other projects are prohibited with no exceptions other than my projects.
Making mirrors, re-uploading to another servers are also prohibited with no exceptions.
If you will do something which prohibited ask me for permission. If you do without my permission i will report you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He never owned the htc/samsung/lg created rom in the first place, and didn't create any of the mods within his rom.
From what i can tell with the new rule, as long as he gives credits to the original creator of the mods within his rom, he can still lock his rom down as he hasn't broken any rules.
I probably have the complete 'wrong end of the stick' here...
Related
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
Hi
These last days, and this is a joy, a few new/or not developers are beginning to create roms on ICS.
Each rom has a difference with others, and i noticed some roms has qualities that are not found on others, but need the advantages of some others.
A few users asked it before, i offer today with this thread (i hope this is not a mistake, and that it will remains clean), to vote. The target is to ask to our developers to create a sort of developing team, around a "unic" rom.
Their competences put in common should be awsome, don't you think?
If you want to help me to make this thread known by developers, do not hesitate to link it in your signature, by this way, dev in the development section could see the result of the vote, that i hope to be YES
Thx for your responses, and please take this thread clean
Want a good idea !
Google is doing this. Wait for the official release...
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
It is called the CM team.... facepalm
FYI, Koush is an integral member of that team (not that they have been working on ICS as a team yet)
This is a terribly biased survey. Where's the option for "No, we'd like to see a diverse selection of Roms"
With all due respect, "Nope, i prefer lot of partially working roms" is a very suggestive option, that says you're critical of the current work, or just impatient.
Seriously dude, ics JUST CAME OUT. Teams will form, and work will get done in due time.
Patience, grasshopper.
Have you no humour?
If you say no, indeed it can be for other reasons..
In fact, the target is to reach an almost stable and fully functionnal BEFORE the official release...
after this, no need to have a team, on a official base, a dev can do something good alone.
As you like to call me grasshoper, and with all the due respect , i would like to call you embittered cod-fish.
Does it fit enough to you sir?
I've happily owned a G2X for almost 7 months now, and have used a custom rom for essentially the entire time.
Prior to the G2X, i used the HTC HD2 - a Windows 6.5 phone that gained notoriety after having android ported to it through the hard work of developers.
However, one thing that I feel is truly missing from the development community here is what most HD2 devs did; that is, they disclosed the problems with their ROM in the first post of their threads.
So, rather than having to hunt through a 200+ page thread, not knowing what build people are referring to, in order to find out issues with a ROM, it would very much simplify the ROM selection process if devs would disclose known issues such as "non working camera" etc.
Obviously every issue cant be accounted for, but I think the big ones being posted would help clarify a lot of things.
Thoughts?
Edit:
For example, here's a link to one of tytung's HD2 roms (he's one of the more popular developers for the HD2):
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1434860
If you scroll down, you'll see he has a list of "working" and "not working" features.
Nobody has any interest in something like this?
Well the thing is all our rooms are based off stock,cm7, or cm9 in one way or another. So everyone knows of the known issues. If its a weird issue out of the norm its usually stated.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Reasoning above doesn't hold up, because each rom has things that are fixed or not fixed individually.
I'm not sure of the reasoning, and i guess different devs might have different reasons. Depending on their priorities and skill levels.
Of course if someone is cooking and theming and/or just vanilla compiling then maybe there's less reason (and perhaps more reason to deemphasize bugs?).
Anyways, i agree that an informative first post with a real change log and working and non working features is a very handy thing to have.
Sent from my LG-P999
kwes1020 said:
Well the thing is all our rooms are based off stock,cm7, or cm9 in one way or another. So everyone knows of the known issues. If its a weird issue out of the norm its usually stated.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think everyone knows the issues. In fact, if you're new to the community you certainly wont.
Stating the problems is what sparked a ton of competition in the HD2 dev community. The first guy to fix the camera, first guy to fix bluetooth powerdrain etc always got a ton of donations and a better rep. I just don't see that competition here at all.
I don't care about a custom bootloader image or some custom wallpapers. I care about the issues being fixed, and I would love to know which devs are the ones fixing them!
rkarsk said:
I don't think everyone knows the issues. In fact, if you're new to the community you certainly wont.
Stating the problems is what sparked a ton of competition in the HD2 dev community. The first guy to fix the camera, first guy to fix bluetooth powerdrain etc always got a ton of donations and a better rep. I just don't see that competition here at all.
I don't care about a custom bootloader image or some custom wallpapers. I care about the issues being fixed, and I would love to know which devs are the ones fixing them!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It really doesn't matter who fixed them, as long as they're fixed. It's not a competition over here. The devs here help each other, especially with ICS. If one of us has a fix for something, it's shared and we all get it. Majority of the people doing the reading that they're supposed to do know the issues that we have with this phone. It just comes down to, are you willing to read to get all of the facts?
Mr. Apocalypse said:
It really doesn't matter who fixed them, as long as they're fixed. It's not a competition over here. The devs here help each other, especially with ICS. If one of us has a fix for something, it's shared and we all get it. Majority of the people doing the reading that they're supposed to do know the issues that we have with this phone. It just comes down to, are you willing to read to get all of the facts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. We don't do this for competition. We do this as a hobby and we all learn from each other. And even the best developers out there are still learning. If you think developers do this for money you are sadly mistaken, money is in app development not roms.
We all have families, kids, school, jobs and a real life. Therefore free time is hard to come by.
You can go to any development thread skim over the last two pages and have the known issues.
bluenote73 said:
Reasoning above doesn't hold up, because each rom has things that are fixed or not fixed individually.
I'm not sure of the reasoning, and i guess different devs might have different reasons. Depending on their priorities and skill levels.
Of course if someone is cooking and theming and/or just vanilla compiling then maybe there's less reason (and perhaps more reason to deemphasize bugs?).
Anyways, i agree that an informative first post with a real change log and working and non working features is a very handy thing to have.
Sent from my LG-P999
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you can't see the reasoning. Then I would like to see the roms you have posted that are not based on one of the bases I listed.
There is this thing called github that most of us use. If you want a "real" change log its there that you'll find it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
kwes1020 said:
You can go to any development thread skim over the last two pages and have the known issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The above isn't even remotely true.
Are you done speaking for all developers yet? I would guess each one can speak for themselves, don't you think?
kwes1020 said:
If you can't see the reasoning. Then I would like to see the roms you have posted that are not based on one of the bases I listed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess your reading comprehension isn't very good. I explained why and how there may be differences. If your experience is mainly doing what I called "vanilla compiling" or theming then I guess I could see how you would generalize that all ROMs will be the same though.
kwes1020 said:
There is this thing called github that most of us use. If you want a "real" change log its there that you'll find it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure why you feel the need and give yourself the permission to get up on your high horse here. I'm aware of source control and I was using it and writing C code nearly 20 years ago although I'm not a programmer now nor was I then but thanks for informing me. I also note the lack of a git or other source control published in the first post of your ROM in the dev section. As I'm sure you know many (most?) other ROM's don't either in there.
Not sure what you're afraid of to be getting your back up. Nobody cares if you just barely learned how, or are an expert at, writing code. People will appreciate a community contribution regardless.
bluenote73 said:
The above isn't even remotely true.
Are you done speaking for all developers yet? I would guess each one can speak for themselves, don't you think?
I guess your reading comprehension isn't very good. I explained why and how there may be differences. If your experience is mainly doing what I called "vanilla compiling" or theming then I guess I could see how you would generalize that all ROMs will be the same though.
I'm not sure why you feel the need and give yourself the permission to get up on your high horse here. I'm aware of source control and I was using it and writing C code nearly 20 years ago although I'm not a programmer now nor was I then but thanks for informing me. I also note the lack of a git or other source control published in the first post of your ROM in the dev section. As I'm sure you know many (most?) other ROM's don't either in there.
Not sure what you're afraid of to be getting your back up. Nobody cares if you just barely learned how, or are an expert at, writing code. People will appreciate a community contribution regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well plainly you have not read the umpteen million threads regarding lg and nvidias lack of open source. If you want the source for any of the roms I've posted that are based off of a stock rom. My source is right there in the rom. Decompile it and look at it. Just like i decompiled it and modded it. You want the source for my cm/aosp based roms its on my github. Want the source for aokp? Its on github and gerrit.
People clearly appreciate my contributions in the android community. I'd say 1000s of downloads and being kanged countless times can prove that. And in case you haven't noticed their aren't many devs in the g2x community. And certainly hardly any of them are going to come answer a thread posted in the wrong section.
Lastly I am not on any high horse nor have I ever been. I have done more then my part to help and contribute to this community. When you post something constructive then you can try to bring your constructive criticism my way.
That is all have a good day. We will post our threads how we want to. Please learn to read a few replies and the answers are there.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
kwes1020 said:
Well plainly you have not read the umpteen million threads regarding lg and nvidias lack of closed source. If you want the source for any of the roms I've posted that are based off of a stock rom. My source is right there in the rom. Decompile it and look at it. Just like i decompiled it and modded it. You want the source for my cm/aosp based roms its on my github. Want the source for aokp? Its on github and gerrit.
People clearly appreciate my contributions in the android community. I'd say 1000s of downloads and being kanged countless times can prove that. And in case you haven't noticed their aren't many devs in the g2x community. And certainly hardly any of them are going to come answer a thread posted in the wrong section.
Lastly I am not on any high horse nor have I ever been. I have done more then my part to help and contribute to this community. When you post something constructive then you can try to bring your constructive criticism my way.
That is all have a good day. We will post our threads how we want to. Please learn to read a few replies and the answers are there.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure this response answers the OP's question far better than I ever could have. Thanks for demonstrating.
Hi guys, i will share a nice and helpful thread from t-mobile s4 but the thread is also for us using i9500/i9505/ge and ofcourse KT KERNEL.
That thread is not mine, so credits goes to luigibull23 and ktoonsez.
ALL CREDITS GO TO THE ONE AND ONLY KTOONSEZ FOR THIS AWESOME KERNEL AND GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THESE BUILDS.
Welcome!
Some of you may know me from the S3 forums but to clarify, I had offered a number of kernel builds for users to easily obtain all within a single thread. I am proud to say it has gained a significant amount of feedback. So I come to YOU today with the same purpose in mind. I am in no way affiliated with Ktoonsez or his work. I’m just a simple member of the XDA community who happens to be a huge supporter of this kernel and its creator. This is just my way of giving back. I am aware of some of the issues that may occur on updated builds for some users as well as the difficulties faced when fine tuning the kernel and this is my response to that:
This is by no means intended to replace any of the original KT-SGS4 kernel threads. The purpose of this thread is simply to work in conjunction with them by providing a variety of builds for users to experiment with and see which versions function properly on each of their respective phone models. As requested, I'm also providing a variety of pre-configured Ktweaker settings in attempt to assist S4 users in further improving their overall experiences on this device or to simply use as a baseline to work upon tweaking further. So I’ve gathered just about all of the current and previous builds I had hidden within my pc as well as all my various Ktweaker settings and am sharing them with the public. I hope this makes a difference for all you guys. ENJOY!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2393708
Removed For Lack of Initial TimeLine Knowledge And To Not Step On Toes
Reserved..
What's the point of this? Why you're sharing the ROM without my permission? Couldn't you just create a post in the LineageOS 12.1 thread with the link (instead creating the new thread - what I was going to do soon..-)?
At this point I'll release LineageOS 14.1 as-is tonight (and yes, I'll create my own thread - which was the initial idea.. -) because people doesn't seems to be able to wait for it.
Thanks for sharing my work (can we also say steal?) without my permission :good:
---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------
btw,
12.3. Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rortiz2 said:
What's the point of this? Why you're sharing the ROM without my permission? Couldn't you just create a post in the LineageOS 12.1 thread with the link (instead creating the new thread - what I was going to do soon..-)?
At this point I'll release LineageOS 14.1 as-is tonight (and yes, I'll create my own thread - which was the initial idea.. -) because people doesn't seems to be able to wait for it.
Thanks for sharing my work (can we also say steal?) without my permission :good:
---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------
btw,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me just clear the air here. Fisrtly, one cannot "steal" something that is openly, publicly and freely available on github. In regards to the legal mumbo jumbo you posted, makes 0 sense to me and means nothing, since that is not the case we have here. I never once re-released anything, nor said anything about taking credit for the work you did. I simply put the rom together from open source materials, just as anyone in the world can /could do and released something that was not built and released. Big differences there. Now, had I hacked your github and started building and releasing your private folders, then what you are talking about would be on par with what you are posting. Long story short, I found the source, built the rom and tested it. I then uploaded the Rom and was in the middle of making this Main post when I came across your cm12.1 post mentioning 14.1. I then tagged you out of mutual respect for your work and personal feelings so that I would make sure that I wasn't stepping on your toes. I now know your feelings and that I am stepping on your toes. Because I have respect for you and your work, I have no problem deleting this thread and the Rom. Just didn't make sense to me at the time that somebody had done all that work and released no rom, so I thought I would be nice and help people out. The better thing to maybe have done, for the benefit of others confusion, is to make the 14.1 thread ahead of time, even if it's blank until release. Silly one would have to read hundreds of pages of cm12.1 stuff to get the gist of what's going on with unrelated 14.1 stuff. I do Apologize for any confusion on my part and any bad feelings you may now harbor. The Rom is your work and now that I know the timeline of things, I'll back off and let you handle it. I will be focusing on getting out more recoveries to compliment your rom. The recovery kernel is built using your sources but the device tree for it was fully made by me, so no confusion there. Again, sorry for basically beating you to the punch of your own release. Like I said, had I not read the cm12.1 posts, I never would have had a clue to any of this. Hopefully you can accept my apologies, move forward and be friends...
PizzaG said:
Let me just clear the air here. Fisrtly, one cannot "steal" something that is openly, publicly and freely available on github. In regards to the legal mumbo jumbo you posted, makes 0 sense to me and means nothing, since that is not the case we have here. I never once re-released anything, nor said anything about taking credit for the work you did. I simply put the rom together from open source materials, just as anyone in the world can /could do and released something that was not built and released. Big differences there. Now, had I hacked your github and started building and releasing your private folders, then what you are talking about would be on par with what you are posting. Long story short, I found the source, built the rom and tested it. I then uploaded the Rom and was in the middle of making this Main post when I came across your cm12.1 post mentioning 14.1. I then tagged you out of mutual respect for your work and personal feelings so that I would make sure that I wasn't stepping on your toes. I now know your feelings and that I am stepping on your toes. Because I have respect for you and your work, I have no problem deleting this thread and the Rom. Just didn't make sense to me at the time that somebody had done all that work and released no rom, so I thought I would be nice and help people out. The better thing to maybe have done, for the benefit of others confusion, is to make the 14.1 thread ahead of time, even if it's blank until release. Silly one would have to read hundreds of pages of cm12.1 stuff to get the gist of what's going on with unrelated 14.1 stuff. I do Apologize for any confusion on my part and any bad feelings you may now harbor. The Rom is your work and now that I know the timeline of things, I'll back off and let you handle it. I will be focusing on getting out more recoveries to compliment your rom. The recovery kernel is built using your sources but the device tree for it was fully made by me, so no confusion there. Again, sorry for basically beating you to the punch of your own release. Like I said, had I not read the cm12.1 posts, I never would have had a clue to any of this. Hopefully you can accept my apologies, move forward and be friends...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Yes, you're completely right there (my bad): you can't actually steal something that is public in the web (I'll try to keep my future work in private repos until it's stable then). I was just really pissed off to see someone shared the ROM that I was working on (so hard for almost 6 months) in a new thread without even waiting for me to allow you or something. But whatever, no offence here (I accept your apologies) and as I previously said (telegram) thanks for understanding my decision and thanks for deleting the ROM. I'll try my best to get stable 14.1 working as fast as possible and I'll release it once it's ready. If people really wants to try the beta of LineageOS 14.1 I'll create an special post in the 12.1 thread with all the stuff later.
About the recoveries I know you just used my kernel tree, I was talking about the device tree/vendor tree you used to build 14.1 (which are the ones I've been working on this months).
Regards and sorry for the confusion.
Hey Rortiz2.
Rortiz2 said:
If people really wants to try the beta of LineageOS 14.1 I'll create an special post in the 12.1 thread with all the stuff later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would make sense. If you do not want to publish your ROM yet fire at least a non-open beta to get the ROM faster and more stable. Let me know if I can support you here in any way.
I would love to be able to test lineage 14.1 on this device, I have been using 12 on it since it released