Sapphire 1.0 and FRG22

[silk]

Where is the confirmation that Droid 1 will not be getting Android 3.0? Last I heard that was shot down by google as reported here:

Google Shuts Down Gingerbread Rumors | Droid Life: A Droid Community Blog

 

[RobStemen]

RAWR!! my name is blue therefore i am always right!

Rule #1: Sniffle is always right.

Rule #2: If Sniffle is wrong, see rule #1.

 

[JonDenver'sCopilot]

Its beautiful to hear this from you after being told I was an ungrateful idiot (paraphrased) for saying much the same thing last night in another thread. Keep up the good work, your source and ROMs are rock solid, and you bring a vitality and knowlege back to the community with this kind of openness and honesty about the code in play.

That handle...is awesome

LOL it was the name of my old high school garage band years ago...but yeah the joke is classic.

 

[Armyof2]

Where is the confirmation that Droid 1 will not be getting Android 3.0? Last I heard that was shot down by google as reported here:

Google Shuts Down Gingerbread Rumors | Droid Life: A Droid Community Blog

Whatcha talkin bout Willis?

I don't see anyone mentioning Droid 1 and Android 3.0 anywhere in this post

 

[Cloppy]

awsome post, cant wait for 1.0!

 

[TRIKOTRET]

So when is Big Sapphire 1.0 coming to town...........dancedroid

 

[GranParadiso]

Excellent points cv. Glad you cleared that up. Can't wait for Sapphire 1.0 so keep up the good work.

 

[silk]

Whatcha talkin bout Willis?

I don't see anyone mentioning Droid 1 and Android 3.0 anywhere in this post

1.) Big red has discontinued sale of the Droid1, so it makes little to no sense as to why they would continue to work on build releases beyond their froyo drop. It has been confirmed that Droid1 will not have support for Android 3.0, and if there were some glaring bug or problem with the FRG01B build that FRG22 fixes, then why would they bother sending out the FRG01B build yesterday when they obviously had FRG22 built already anyway?

From the first post in the thread...

 

[kellex]

I just want to thank CVPCS for the original post.

Looking forward to Sapphire 1.0!

 

[brochaos]

i guess this throws the whole F_Gxx thing where "R" stands for release and "S" stands for stable out the window =P

either way, i'm not worried about it either. just looking forward to 1.0!

 

[RevivaL]

so, how close are we to 1.0?

 

[sniffle]

we have a small checklist of things to do before we release, not long now... come visit irc, that's where we tell people what is going on and try to give more specific times. though even there it is still up in the air.

 

[YankInDaSouth]

we have a small checklist of things to do before we release, not long now... come visit irc, that's where we tell people what is going on and try to give more specific times. though even there it is still up in the air.

irc? is there a link? I'd like to be in the know

 

[banderbe]

3.) It is important to understand that just because FRG22 was leaked yesterday, the build was likely done several days before that. Sapphire 1.0 synced all of its source with AOSP last night before beginning its release build, so technically its AOSP source would have been more up-to-date than the FRG22 stuff anyway.

I don't know how you can compare a "leaked" ROM from Motorola with anything on AOSP.

At the very most you can say two things:

1) Your build may have changes not in the "leak"
2) The "leak" may have changes not in your build - changes made by Motorola against their in house copy of AOSP.

Additionally your ROM will come stock with a kernel built against the default sholes kernel config.

It's a near certainty that Motorola builds their stock kernel with a customized version of sholes default config - and nobody has access to that config file that I am aware of.

Edit: It looks like nothing has been committed to the froyo branch in at least five days anyway.

 

[Bear in NM]

CVPS,

I completely agree with your assessment with one small exception. It does appear that some number of folks are having issues with the implementation of the stagefright core program. I know you know about this, as your original post on it helped me understand what is possibly going (thank you).

Is it possible that moto/vzw are hedging their bets, so to speak, with the possibility that the new OTA will have some issues with stagefright and audio with some number of users? As it appears that there is a little finger pointing going on between the app dev's and google about the/a problem, it would not surprise me in the least if there is indeed a 2.2.1 possibly out there on the horizon.

Now with my tin foil hat screwed tightly down, it would not surprise me in the least for moto/vzw/google to push this 2.2 OTA knowing that there might be a bug or two. They have a much bigger picture to consider regarding current users, new phones on the horizon, and the vast blogospehere regarding commitments for flash, and other 2.2 features. Toss in the mess on the 2.1 OTA, and I am sure there are some interesting pressures being applied from all parties. If there are any glitches, I am pretty sure "wait for gingerbread" would not fly.

If I were google/moto/vzw, I would have some amount of resources devoted to continued testing of 2.2, at some level, albeit small. And even if they had no specific knowledge of any "broken" elements, corporations of this size do not get to be this size by being reactive only. You mentioned only a few files/apps being different. Would any of these files relate in any way to stagefright or audio?

Craig