28 ms·

Google releases full Android 4.0.1 source code, includes Honeycomb too

481 points by patrickaljord 15y ago

cdibona 15y ago
Please don't sync yet, it's currently in a mixed state. The 'repo for-all git push' is still running and will take some time to complete, so if you sync now you'll get some parts with Gingerbread and some parts with ICS.
imurray 15y ago
[dead] comment by cdibona: "Please don't sync yet, it's currently in a mixed state. The 'repo for-all git push' is still running and will take some time to complete, so if you sync now you'll get some parts with Gingerbread and some parts with ICS." (If you accidentally post something twice, be careful about deleting one. The other one may be automatically killed, but you don't see it when your posts are killed.)
- wx77 15y ago
  It looks like it happened because he posted the same thing twice in different threads, not because he deleted it.
  - cdibona 15y ago
    That's correct. It wasn't clear which one was going to end up on the front page and I was covering the bases. Stand by :-)
- angryasian 15y ago
  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/y0Z-pwJmeeI https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/y0Z... now ready to sync
ErikRogneby 15y ago
Only the Honeycomb GPL modules are available. The entire platform source is not available. see here: http://source.android.com/source/build-numbers.html http://source.android.com/source/build-numbers.html
- martey 15y ago
  Is it possible that specific page of documentation has just not been updated yet? The linked thread has Jean-Baptiste Queru stating: > This release includes the full history of the Android source code tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb releases.
- abrahamsen 15y ago
  From Jean-Baptiste Queru's announcement http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4619a1455a http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b46... I gather that the "complete" Honeycomb source is available as part of the git history, but without tags.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  I think that link is just outdated, it doesn't mention ICS at all. The link for this submission says: "This release includes the full history of the Android source code tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the changes are present in the history.)"
pasbesoin 15y ago
Why is Chris DiBona's comment in this thread dead? What he said is "from the horse's mouth", i.e. Google Open Source. Comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3235947 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3235947 Profile: http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdibona http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdibona Personal site (includes mention of his job): http://www.dibona.com/ http://www.dibona.com/ P.S. Chris, you have http://dibona.com http://dibona.com in your HN profile, but it just redirects.
- hollerith 15y ago
  >Why is Chris DiBona's comment in this thread dead? He posted the same text in 2 comments (in two different threads). Probably the second of the 2 was a victim of an automatic dup detector/killer.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    Interesting. I wasn't aware that HN checks comments across threads. Makes sense.
    - cdibona 15y ago
      I guess I'll start salting my dupe comments :-)
      - bostonvaulter2 15y ago
        You can salt them by including a link to the previous comment you made :)
pingswept 15y ago
In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great. Well done, Google.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  You know that Honeycomb was the only distribution for which Google did not release the source, right?
- vladd 15y ago
  What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.
  - shareme 15y ago
    ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
    - kprobst 15y ago
      So don't call it 'Open Source' then.
    - hrktb 15y ago
      Well, if Nokia boasted about Symbian's openness, they were in the position to be criticized too. It's mostly a PR problem.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Flash has nothing to do with Google's reasons for not open sourcing Honeycomb.
- Wowwhatisthe 15y ago
  Down-voted by the rejects of 'Hacker News'
hunterp 15y ago
How does this differ from previous releases? Can I finally attach sources to the actual Android sdk jar and attach a debugger?
bri3d 15y ago
Why don't they just tag all of Honeycomb? If the reason is that there's no combination of project commits that can create a building Honeycomb, they should just admit to it and explain why. The current approach seems like a weird attempt to snow something over - I understand that Honeycomb was a rushed, trashy Android release, and that there's some pride involved, but supposedly all of the rushed, trashy code is in the tree now, and hence there's no going back. The first thing everyone on xda-developers is going to do is go hunting for bad Honeycomb code anyway.
- RobAtticus 15y ago
  I don't know that it was so much "bad" code as they didn't want other groups to try and put Honeycomb on devices that it did not work on (i.e. phones). This would hurt the brand and fill the tech blogs with "Honeycomb is unstable and buggy!" when it really didn't belong on those devices in the first place. There's a new release now that is stable for all kinds of devices, is it worth it to concern ourselves with what exactly is or isn't Honeycomb? I don't think they were trying to snow something over, I think this was their plan. Release Honeycomb after ICS since device manufacturers will use ICS anyway since it's new.
shn 15y ago
while I found the opportunity that many commenting and interested in this topic, let me ask a question. Can one upgrade any android phone by himself? (I do not own one), or one need to wait for the carrier and or manufacturer need to do it?
- jtreminio 15y ago
  If your phone is rooted, or rootable, there's a bunch of devs over @ XDA-developers forum that create custom ROMs for most Android phones. The most famous of these is CyanogenMod, which works across most Android phones out. Once they port it to your phone you can flash the ROM and run ICS on your phone!
  - shn 15y ago
    Thanks for the reply. Using the keywords like "custom ROM", "rooting" you mentioned in your reply I am also able to google for more.
melling 15y ago
Now the only thing missing is a winning strategy for desktops/laptops. :-) Seems like Chrome OS should be folded into Android and many people would be comfortable using it at home. Same apps could run and sync on all devices.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  Unfortunately the two systems are very different and largely incompatible. Merging them would not be impossible, but it's not easy.
  - Maakuth 15y ago
    I don't know about that. Certainly there are large differences under the hood, but isn't Chrome OS just supposed to run browser apps really well? I don't think that's a very hard compatibility measure for Android to match.
    - Andrex 15y ago
      The entire point of Chrome OS is that it's only the browser. Saying you want Chrome OS merged with Android is the same as saying you just want a Chrome APK. Chrome OS's key tenets of security and simplicity are simply not compatible with traditional operating systems.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Google seems to be trying to position itself as the Microsoft of the post-PC world. I doubt ChromeOS, as an operating system designed for the now-defunct netbook, plays much of a role in that strategy.
  - adgar 15y ago
    > I doubt ChromeOS, as an operating system designed for the now-defunct netbook Actually, ChromeOS isn't just for netbooks. It's for a world where everything you want to do on your computer is available via a web service. Netbooks happen to be suitable for ChromeOS now because the web services available today generally don't require much heavy lifting client-side. Especially if NaCl/PNaCl takes off (who knows?) that very well may change soon. That's why ChromeOS as designed is, in my opinion, actually unlikely to become defunct anytime soon: I personally suspect the percentage of consumers for which ChromeOS's capabilities are sufficient will continue to rise over the next few years.
blantonl 15y ago
I've heard so many complaints from developers about the delayed source release, however I've never known Google to withhold source code for Android. Could the slight delay in release simply be due to legal issues such as scrubbing patent issues and verification that OSS code isn't infringing?
- icarus_drowning 15y ago
  They're probably talking specifically about Honeycomb, which started showing up in devices in Feb. 2011 according to Wikipedia, but only now is being open-sourced. So that does seem to have been withheld. Not that missing that deserves the downvoting you're getting though.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  Honest question from a maybe-future Android dev: is it notably more challenging to develop for Android during periods when the source is not yet public? For example, is a lot of platform doc written from the POV of someone who expects you'll just peep the code when questions arise? Update: +1 to everyone thinking 'man, I bitch about google sometimes, but this kind of thing is totally legit and awesome'
  - jasonostrander 15y ago
    I do Android dev full time and it's pretty rare to actually need to look at the source. The only time is when encountering a strange bug that you suspect is caused by the underlying implementation. Google has generally been good about releasing emulator images prior to releases, though usually it's only a few weeks. Luckily, it takes time for Android versions to achieve large market share, so any bugs can be squashed before it's a big problem.
    - babebridou 15y ago
      Sometimes when I'm in a bad mood, the API and online doc are not cutting it - I start wondering why it doesn't work the way I'd expect it to, and from there I have multiple options, from StackOverflow to Google Groups to ordering a book on Amazon.com, and this is the true productivity killer because of, you know, the internet. The definitive and fastest answer will always come from reading and understanding the source code, as I don't have to hope that someone had the same problem I'm having and someone else had an answer, or that someone will reply to my question before I give up. Eclair, Froyo and Gingerbread sources were enough for 99% of my needs though, but there was always this shadow of doubt for Honeycomb-specific features... For the most part, having the latest source readily available will greatly reduce the amount of open browser tabs, and for that I'm thankful :)
zobzu 15y ago
'bout time !
Srirangan 15y ago
Well done Google!
decklin 15y ago
There are two links to this post on the front page right now. This one, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4X... , loads fine on my computer and comes up in the "new" Google visual design. It completely fails on my phone (Android 2.3), displaying "Loading..." for a while and then bumping me to the front page of Google Groups with a little message saying I am now logged in (I tried several times). The other link, https://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4619a1455a?pli=1 https://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4... , just works, everywhere, but shows the old Groups interface. This is a really sad state of affairs. If Google can't guarantee that their fancy new Javascript-dependent links won't work everywhere, they should not be used as permalinks. I really don't care about any arguments people might want to make about the visual redesign, or how to properly implement #! paths, or the extra effort involved in generating resilient URLs, or Google paying special attention to how the Android browser handles pages, or what evil things my phone company might be doing my my data stream, and how that's not their fault, or whatever. Permalinks should work. Everywhere. Period.
juliano_q 15y ago
Google releases every source code except Honeycomb. I think the code was really ugly, released urgently to support tablets. I cant blame Google, we who works with software in big companies know how pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but I am glad that things are back on track.
- pingswept 15y ago
  I agree that pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but compliance with the GPL is not optional.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    They released the GPL parts.
    - pingswept 15y ago
      I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable at this point by some means?
      - ben1040 15y ago
        They've made posts in the android-building Google group when making GPL code drops. Here is the most recent, corresponding to GPL portions of Android 3.2.1. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-building/IrFiwQ-hLKM/discussion https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-building/IrFiwQ-hL...
        pingswept 15y ago
        That's good and convincing. I stand corrected.
  - guelo 15y ago
    Only Android's modifications to the Linux kernel and a few other tools are under GPL. Most stuff is Apache 2.0.
DonnyV 15y ago
I'v never seen so many people BITCHING about getting free code. No less an entire OS that runs on hundreds of devices. Maaahhhh you didn't release it fast enough. Stop whining!!
cnxsoft 15y ago
That source tree is huge. Over 6GB of data and it takes several hours to sync on my machine (not done yet).
xxiao 15y ago
I criticized google for holding back honeycomb, now it's finally releasing the code again. Great! Thanks Google.
rst 15y ago
Not _quite_ full source code --- some proprietary graphics drivers are supplied in binary-only form. It won't matter much for most uses of the source code, but purists will be displeased. http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html
- Iv 15y ago
  I guess that the netowrk modules that handle GSM and 3G packets are out of the open source code also. That is disappointing too.
- Maakuth 15y ago
  That is probably not in Google's hands to change. It's the same with the vendor-supplied GPU drivers in desktop Linux as well.
cppsnob 15y ago
Related: how's Apple's "open" FaceTime specification coming along? Still waiting on just the specification here. Not even code.
- greyish_water 15y ago
  Troll. (Edit: You'll downvote me, but not the troll? WTF?)
  - wgren 15y ago
    One word (or few word) posts like "Troll", "Fanboy", "This", or "LOL" are frowned on at Hacker News because they don't add anything to the discussion.
thristian 15y ago
So, the Android website is packed full of information about how to clone the Android repository and build it from scratch, but I just want to browse it online. Is there some official "gitweb" site or something that I can poke at?
- asmosoinio 15y ago
  Android sources get mirrored to https://github.com/android/ https://github.com/android/, which allows browsing of the code. The latest release is probably not be there yet, though. For example, source of the MMS conversation list: https://github.com/android/platform_packages_apps_mms/blob/master/src/com/android/mms/ui/ConversationList.java https://github.com/android/platform_packages_apps_mms/blob/m... -- update: Another great place to browse the source, with working links to other classes, multiple versions etc, is grepcode: http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android-apps/2.0_r1/com/android/mms/ui/ComposeMessageActivity.java http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/co...
  - eslaught 15y ago
    github.com/android seems be a mirror of kernel.org, which isn't where Android is hosted any more...
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  Used to be; they haven't got their gitweb back online yet though. They're still in the middle of moving all their infrastructure internally after the kernel.org breach.
vog 15y ago
Many thanks to http://gpl-violations.org/ http://gpl-violations.org/! Without their pressure this would have taken considerably longer. (Or wouldn't have happened at all?)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- vog 15y ago
  To the person who downvoted this comment: Could you explain what's wrong with it?
  - Andrex 15y ago
    Probably because it was always the intent to release the ICS source code, and gpl-violations didn't factor into the decision whatsoever. (I didn't downvote your comment though.)
  - vgrichina 15y ago
    GPL'ed code has been already released by Google, what was released now is under Apache license.
  - roflharrison 15y ago
    From what i can see there is no pressure being put on Google from gpl-violations.org (presumably because the haven't made any violations). Plenty of heat being put on manufacturers with Android devices but that is hardly Google's fault or related to the ICS release.
tomlin 15y ago
Meanwhile at Daring Fireball crickets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

481 points by patrickaljord 15y ago

Please don't sync yet, it's currently in a mixed state. The 'repo for-all git push' is still running and will take some time to complete, so if you sync now you'll get some parts with Gingerbread and some parts with ICS.

imurray 15y ago

[dead] comment by cdibona: "Please don't sync yet, it's currently in a mixed state. The 'repo for-all git push' is still running and will take some time to complete, so if you sync now you'll get some parts with Gingerbread and some parts with ICS." (If you accidentally post something twice, be careful about deleting one. The other one may be automatically killed, but you don't see it when your posts are killed.)

wx77 15y ago
It looks like it happened because he posted the same thing twice in different threads, not because he deleted it.
- cdibona 15y ago
  That's correct. It wasn't clear which one was going to end up on the front page and I was covering the bases. Stand by :-)
angryasian 15y ago
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/y0Z-pwJmeeI https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/y0Z... now ready to sync

ErikRogneby 15y ago

Only the Honeycomb GPL modules are available. The entire platform source is not available. see here: http://source.android.com/source/build-numbers.html http://source.android.com/source/build-numbers.html

martey 15y ago
Is it possible that specific page of documentation has just not been updated yet? The linked thread has Jean-Baptiste Queru stating: > This release includes the full history of the Android source code tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb releases.
abrahamsen 15y ago
From Jean-Baptiste Queru's announcement http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4619a1455a http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b46... I gather that the "complete" Honeycomb source is available as part of the git history, but without tags.
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
I think that link is just outdated, it doesn't mention ICS at all. The link for this submission says: "This release includes the full history of the Android source code tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the changes are present in the history.)"

pasbesoin 15y ago

Why is Chris DiBona's comment in this thread dead? What he said is "from the horse's mouth", i.e. Google Open Source. Comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3235947 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3235947 Profile: http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdibona http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdibona Personal site (includes mention of his job): http://www.dibona.com/ http://www.dibona.com/ P.S. Chris, you have http://dibona.com http://dibona.com in your HN profile, but it just redirects.

hollerith 15y ago
>Why is Chris DiBona's comment in this thread dead? He posted the same text in 2 comments (in two different threads). Probably the second of the 2 was a victim of an automatic dup detector/killer.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  Interesting. I wasn't aware that HN checks comments across threads. Makes sense.
  - cdibona 15y ago
    I guess I'll start salting my dupe comments :-)
    - bostonvaulter2 15y ago
      You can salt them by including a link to the previous comment you made :)

pingswept 15y ago

In the past, I've spent a fair bit of time criticizing Google for calling Android "open source", but not releasing the source. Now that it appears that they are actually doing it, let me be the first to say that this is great. Well done, Google.

cookiecaper 15y ago
You know that Honeycomb was the only distribution for which Google did not release the source, right?
vladd 15y ago
What people criticized about them was the delay of an open source release to sustain their business strategy (commoditize their products' complements via open source but keep a integrated experience by proprietary early-access agreements - see also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html ). This release doesn't change Google's strategy nor the fact that they will continue to release Android's source code in the future with a significant delay compared to early-access partners. There's no reason to congratulate them now nor complain louder some months from now, they'll continue to do what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. The only news are the yet-to-be-discovered jewels in the just-released source code.
- shareme 15y ago
  ahem if you check mobile dev history you will find Nokia did the same thing with open source Symbian, etc.. No viable successful open source mobile OS gives equal access to public and OEM partners to a private tree
  - kprobst 15y ago
    So don't call it 'Open Source' then.
  - hrktb 15y ago
    Well, if Nokia boasted about Symbian's openness, they were in the position to be criticized too. It's mostly a PR problem.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

drivebyacct2 15y ago
Flash has nothing to do with Google's reasons for not open sourcing Honeycomb.
Wowwhatisthe 15y ago
Down-voted by the rejects of 'Hacker News'

hunterp 15y ago

How does this differ from previous releases? Can I finally attach sources to the actual Android sdk jar and attach a debugger?

bri3d 15y ago

Why don't they just tag all of Honeycomb? If the reason is that there's no combination of project commits that can create a building Honeycomb, they should just admit to it and explain why. The current approach seems like a weird attempt to snow something over - I understand that Honeycomb was a rushed, trashy Android release, and that there's some pride involved, but supposedly all of the rushed, trashy code is in the tree now, and hence there's no going back. The first thing everyone on xda-developers is going to do is go hunting for bad Honeycomb code anyway.

RobAtticus 15y ago
I don't know that it was so much "bad" code as they didn't want other groups to try and put Honeycomb on devices that it did not work on (i.e. phones). This would hurt the brand and fill the tech blogs with "Honeycomb is unstable and buggy!" when it really didn't belong on those devices in the first place. There's a new release now that is stable for all kinds of devices, is it worth it to concern ourselves with what exactly is or isn't Honeycomb? I don't think they were trying to snow something over, I think this was their plan. Release Honeycomb after ICS since device manufacturers will use ICS anyway since it's new.

shn 15y ago

while I found the opportunity that many commenting and interested in this topic, let me ask a question. Can one upgrade any android phone by himself? (I do not own one), or one need to wait for the carrier and or manufacturer need to do it?

jtreminio 15y ago
If your phone is rooted, or rootable, there's a bunch of devs over @ XDA-developers forum that create custom ROMs for most Android phones. The most famous of these is CyanogenMod, which works across most Android phones out. Once they port it to your phone you can flash the ROM and run ICS on your phone!
- shn 15y ago
  Thanks for the reply. Using the keywords like "custom ROM", "rooting" you mentioned in your reply I am also able to google for more.

melling 15y ago

Now the only thing missing is a winning strategy for desktops/laptops. :-) Seems like Chrome OS should be folded into Android and many people would be comfortable using it at home. Same apps could run and sync on all devices.

chimeracoder 15y ago
Unfortunately the two systems are very different and largely incompatible. Merging them would not be impossible, but it's not easy.
- Maakuth 15y ago
  I don't know about that. Certainly there are large differences under the hood, but isn't Chrome OS just supposed to run browser apps really well? I don't think that's a very hard compatibility measure for Android to match.
  - Andrex 15y ago
    The entire point of Chrome OS is that it's only the browser. Saying you want Chrome OS merged with Android is the same as saying you just want a Chrome APK. Chrome OS's key tenets of security and simplicity are simply not compatible with traditional operating systems.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Google seems to be trying to position itself as the Microsoft of the post-PC world. I doubt ChromeOS, as an operating system designed for the now-defunct netbook, plays much of a role in that strategy.
- adgar 15y ago
  > I doubt ChromeOS, as an operating system designed for the now-defunct netbook Actually, ChromeOS isn't just for netbooks. It's for a world where everything you want to do on your computer is available via a web service. Netbooks happen to be suitable for ChromeOS now because the web services available today generally don't require much heavy lifting client-side. Especially if NaCl/PNaCl takes off (who knows?) that very well may change soon. That's why ChromeOS as designed is, in my opinion, actually unlikely to become defunct anytime soon: I personally suspect the percentage of consumers for which ChromeOS's capabilities are sufficient will continue to rise over the next few years.

blantonl 15y ago

I've heard so many complaints from developers about the delayed source release, however I've never known Google to withhold source code for Android. Could the slight delay in release simply be due to legal issues such as scrubbing patent issues and verification that OSS code isn't infringing?

icarus_drowning 15y ago
They're probably talking specifically about Honeycomb, which started showing up in devices in Feb. 2011 according to Wikipedia, but only now is being open-sourced. So that does seem to have been withheld. Not that missing that deserves the downvoting you're getting though.
feralchimp 15y ago
Honest question from a maybe-future Android dev: is it notably more challenging to develop for Android during periods when the source is not yet public? For example, is a lot of platform doc written from the POV of someone who expects you'll just peep the code when questions arise? Update: +1 to everyone thinking 'man, I bitch about google sometimes, but this kind of thing is totally legit and awesome'
- jasonostrander 15y ago
  I do Android dev full time and it's pretty rare to actually need to look at the source. The only time is when encountering a strange bug that you suspect is caused by the underlying implementation. Google has generally been good about releasing emulator images prior to releases, though usually it's only a few weeks. Luckily, it takes time for Android versions to achieve large market share, so any bugs can be squashed before it's a big problem.
  - babebridou 15y ago
    Sometimes when I'm in a bad mood, the API and online doc are not cutting it - I start wondering why it doesn't work the way I'd expect it to, and from there I have multiple options, from StackOverflow to Google Groups to ordering a book on Amazon.com, and this is the true productivity killer because of, you know, the internet. The definitive and fastest answer will always come from reading and understanding the source code, as I don't have to hope that someone had the same problem I'm having and someone else had an answer, or that someone will reply to my question before I give up. Eclair, Froyo and Gingerbread sources were enough for 99% of my needs though, but there was always this shadow of doubt for Honeycomb-specific features... For the most part, having the latest source readily available will greatly reduce the amount of open browser tabs, and for that I'm thankful :)

zobzu 15y ago

'bout time !

Srirangan 15y ago

Well done Google!

decklin 15y ago

There are two links to this post on the front page right now. This one, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4X... , loads fine on my computer and comes up in the "new" Google visual design. It completely fails on my phone (Android 2.3), displaying "Loading..." for a while and then bumping me to the front page of Google Groups with a little message saying I am now logged in (I tried several times). The other link, https://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4619a1455a?pli=1 https://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4... , just works, everywhere, but shows the old Groups interface. This is a really sad state of affairs. If Google can't guarantee that their fancy new Javascript-dependent links won't work everywhere, they should not be used as permalinks. I really don't care about any arguments people might want to make about the visual redesign, or how to properly implement #! paths, or the extra effort involved in generating resilient URLs, or Google paying special attention to how the Android browser handles pages, or what evil things my phone company might be doing my my data stream, and how that's not their fault, or whatever. Permalinks should work. Everywhere. Period.

juliano_q 15y ago

Google releases every source code except Honeycomb. I think the code was really ugly, released urgently to support tablets. I cant blame Google, we who works with software in big companies know how pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but I am glad that things are back on track.

pingswept 15y ago
I agree that pressure and strict timelines can be a pain, but compliance with the GPL is not optional.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  They released the GPL parts.
  - pingswept 15y ago
    I hadn't heard that. Is that verifiable at this point by some means?
    - ben1040 15y ago
      They've made posts in the android-building Google group when making GPL code drops. Here is the most recent, corresponding to GPL portions of Android 3.2.1. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-building/IrFiwQ-hLKM/discussion https://groups.google.com/d/topic/android-building/IrFiwQ-hL...
      - pingswept 15y ago
        That's good and convincing. I stand corrected.
- guelo 15y ago
  Only Android's modifications to the Linux kernel and a few other tools are under GPL. Most stuff is Apache 2.0.

DonnyV 15y ago

I'v never seen so many people BITCHING about getting free code. No less an entire OS that runs on hundreds of devices. Maaahhhh you didn't release it fast enough. Stop whining!!

cnxsoft 15y ago

That source tree is huge. Over 6GB of data and it takes several hours to sync on my machine (not done yet).

xxiao 15y ago

I criticized google for holding back honeycomb, now it's finally releasing the code again. Great! Thanks Google.

rst 15y ago

Not _quite_ full source code --- some proprietary graphics drivers are supplied in binary-only form. It won't matter much for most uses of the source code, but purists will be displeased. http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html

Iv 15y ago
I guess that the netowrk modules that handle GSM and 3G packets are out of the open source code also. That is disappointing too.
Maakuth 15y ago
That is probably not in Google's hands to change. It's the same with the vendor-supplied GPU drivers in desktop Linux as well.

cppsnob 15y ago

Related: how's Apple's "open" FaceTime specification coming along? Still waiting on just the specification here. Not even code.

greyish_water 15y ago
Troll. (Edit: You'll downvote me, but not the troll? WTF?)
- wgren 15y ago
  One word (or few word) posts like "Troll", "Fanboy", "This", or "LOL" are frowned on at Hacker News because they don't add anything to the discussion.

thristian 15y ago

So, the Android website is packed full of information about how to clone the Android repository and build it from scratch, but I just want to browse it online. Is there some official "gitweb" site or something that I can poke at?

asmosoinio 15y ago
Android sources get mirrored to https://github.com/android/ https://github.com/android/, which allows browsing of the code. The latest release is probably not be there yet, though. For example, source of the MMS conversation list: https://github.com/android/platform_packages_apps_mms/blob/master/src/com/android/mms/ui/ConversationList.java https://github.com/android/platform_packages_apps_mms/blob/m... -- update: Another great place to browse the source, with working links to other classes, multiple versions etc, is grepcode: http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android-apps/2.0_r1/com/android/mms/ui/ComposeMessageActivity.java http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/co...
- eslaught 15y ago
  github.com/android seems be a mirror of kernel.org, which isn't where Android is hosted any more...
ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Used to be; they haven't got their gitweb back online yet though. They're still in the middle of moving all their infrastructure internally after the kernel.org breach.

vog 15y ago

Many thanks to http://gpl-violations.org/ http://gpl-violations.org/! Without their pressure this would have taken considerably longer. (Or wouldn't have happened at all?)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
vog 15y ago
To the person who downvoted this comment: Could you explain what's wrong with it?
- Andrex 15y ago
  Probably because it was always the intent to release the ICS source code, and gpl-violations didn't factor into the decision whatsoever. (I didn't downvote your comment though.)
- vgrichina 15y ago
  GPL'ed code has been already released by Google, what was released now is under Apache license.
- roflharrison 15y ago
  From what i can see there is no pressure being put on Google from gpl-violations.org (presumably because the haven't made any violations). Plenty of heat being put on manufacturers with Android devices but that is hardly Google's fault or related to the ICS release.

tomlin 15y ago

Meanwhile at Daring Fireball crickets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg