Release of 16.07?

I’m sure they don’t delay things just for annoying their customers :wink:
In the end it’s all coming down to resources and manpower available I guess…

2 Likes

I completely agree with you. But it’s actually exactly resources and manpower that let me question the current resource intensive two-track approach of the FP-OS development. Both builds are based on the same AOSP code and the differences are actually (at least from my perspective) minor: Open Version uses TWRP, is rootable and has no GAPPS while the stock ROM has GAPPS but no TWRP and no root. Both GAPPS and TWRP are installable components so they do not directly affect the main image, root is one single patch.
Looking at these facts I really do not understand why one version gets an update and the other side has to wait and live with some really annoying bugs.
So why not use the same AOSP codebase + TWRP as the base for both ? I think even “normal users” would benefit from TWRP and adding the root patch to one build and GAPPS to the other should not be the biggest problem. And last but not least both builds deserve up to date security and bug fixes.

2 Likes

Git version control system (the one they use at code.fairphone.com, and probably elsewhere) allows you to transfer differential changes (called commits) from repository A to B effortlessly.

I think they do development on FPOS-GMS repos and later move those commits to the mayority of FPOS-Open repos without hassle. But sensitive parts like kernel, blobs and Open OS userspace additions have to be thoroughly checked and tested. Plus they have to research and fix specific Open OS bugs. Plus its summertime. Plus they are also working on FP1’s KitKat. Plus […]

I used to think just like you, but after having tinkered with CodeAurora AOSP, FPOS-OS and CyanogenMod sources, I’ve understand that FPOS is an Operating System, and operating systems are sensitive and hard. FPOS is based on Android, which is a comercial OS and it’s not designed with a rolling release update model in mind. I’m sure Fairphone team is performing at their best with that situation.

My position here is trust them and give them some flexibility. After that, I could be upset and ask them more things, as at the phone release time. I think its fair.

7 Likes

It would be great if these commits and comments would show up in Changelogs. With all the (code) release I’ve seen (while I was still trying), it was hard to track what really has happened between the different FPOOS versions. The commits/merges as far as I remember are not commented. All I saw was some fixes.

Maybe the code merge comes from the ODM/SoC or is it just pulled from CodeAurora and FP fixes the rest? Nobody ever explained how it is done. Or did I miss a blog post?

1 Like

I think this is a good point and brings me to the whole issue of communication between users and developers. I do understand all the issues about manpower and the whole development process that are brought up here, but continuously just being asked to trust and wait is not only starting to stretch my patience - thats just my stuff, but it is no good marketing either. Just to clarify: I am not saying this to bash anybody, but in the contrary I do find (as probably most o us) that the idea of an open source OS on a Fairphone is great. And I can see great marketing potential.
I would appreciate a development process that is much more transparent and less behind closed doors than the current one. This would mean to adopt methods that protect developers from being pestered by users but on the other hand give users an insight about whats going on. Transparent development is for me an essential part of Open Source development. One solution for a start could be a bug-tracker similar to what you find on sites like Launchpad or Github. The bugtracker helps the devs to sort and manage the bugs and it helps the users in the form that it shows them any progress.

4 Likes

16.07.0 seems to be available, but the links on code.fairphone.com haven’t been updated yet - for whatever reason.

http://storage.googleapis.com/fairphone-updates/fp2-sibon-16.07.0-ota_from_gms-userdebug.zip

http://storage.googleapis.com/fairphone-updates/fp2-sibon-16.07.0-ota-userdebug.zip

[Update 18.08.2016]
The links stopped working. Seems that they have pulled the files.

3 Likes

Have you tried it? Maybe there are reasons why they have not put it on the public site ?

2 Likes

I’m asking myself the exact same question as @M_Dammer, :confused:

2 Likes

I just poked my nosy nose into the zip. After I was confused finding a modification date of 3rd. of December 2015 for the files I found this in the metadata file:
post-timestamp=1470688428
Translated from Unixtime into human readable time this means a build date of Monday 8th. of August 2016. This is promising, but I am stll wondering why there is radio silence from the FP team. As I said many times before: Please FP people be a bit more transparent and talkative about whats going on here. Even if your webmaster might be sick and cannot do the updates, then please tell us that it’s ok to use these files - we have now waited for almost two months for this update.

1 Like

Last update was a month ago (mid july) and yes: it is holiday season in the Netherlands. This is the first phone I have that gets regular updates and only Google Nexus devices get monthly updates. The rest of the manufacturers just let the customer wait for many months or even much longer to get security patches; and sometimes never… My previous Sony Xperia V did get in three years less system updates than my FP 2 got in 4 months! I’m more than satisfied with the support from FP and if they can keep this up, I will buy in due time a FP 3 or FP 4.

3 Likes

I understand, but it really does not take a lot to just put out a blog post or a response in this forum to say “use it” - or wait.

1 Like

So Fairphone should announce something only because we poke into their servers using a predefined URL pattern and discovered a new build? I don’t agree with that, sorry.

@Douwe’s answer is the last official news we got, although the forum is a community forum —doesn’t have (and doesn’t have to have, neither) official support other than moderators. I’ll stick with that announcement.

I’m feeling lately some kind of “Fairphone should do perfect and right now all that other OEMs had not do over a big amount of time” opinion and I, of course, doesn’t consider that fair from us. Criticism is good; overpressure isn’t.

4 Likes

Hey all,

We had a delay and the missing commits from 1.5.1 need to be included, and made into a new release

At this point we think it is better to include the patches from 1.6.x as well, and release at the same time with it, as 16.08

3 Likes

Thanks for the update - and apologies if my post was a bit pushy. Can you give us a rough estimate when 16.08 will be released ? I am asking because I and probably others as well would prefer a sooner 16.07 release with hopefully some security fixes and ugly bugs (like the clock not being saved during reboots) fixed instead of waiting for another period.

There will be no 16.07 release…
I can’t say when 16.08 will be released, but, as the name suggests, it should be before the end of the month.

6 Likes

Please, can you tell us if the painful Clock-Reset-Bug (https://forum.fairphone.com/t/fp-open-os-clock-resets-after-reboot/17635) will be fixed in 16.08? Thanks in advance.

5 Likes

16.07.1 is out
https://code.fairphone.com/contentx/2016-08-15_fairphone-open-16.07_release.html

Sorry about the delay everyone. It was caused by absences during the holiday season.
16.08 should also be released this month.

Sorry, this is not fixed yet.

7 Likes

I hope this bug gets high priority - reports in this forum are going back to May and I wonder how it will get fixed: The Code Aurora android that FP is using uses a system that leaves the RTC (Real Time Clock) in read-only mode and only stores the delta between RTC time and the time the user has set. I am observing that TWRP for instance suffers from the same bug: No set RTC, no proper timestamps on backups etc. There is a Code Aurora patch that simply allows write access to the RTC and I wonder if that would offer a better (and quicker) solution than trying to fix it just for the system (but not the recovery).

4 Likes

This is great news. Thanks!

Continue here: