yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jlevy73:
But how does one determine which Roms get moved? It's completely arbitrary IMO. For example, look at Darky's Rom. All that is, is a themed KG1 Rom but did that get moved to the derivatives section, no it didn't. It still boggles my mind that Litening Rom got moved to the derivative section. All XDA has accomplished with this sub-section afaik is pissing off members and developers alike. XDA is about fostering a community where developers can share their work with others. This will drive a wedge right through that.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] MicioMax:
Even not being (by now...) a rom developer, I don't like this way of thinking.

How do you decide if a rom is "original" or "derivative" ? By the features ? By the embedded mods ? By the specs ? By given or missing thanks to other devs ?

As a user, the *only* thing that matters is if rom works well, if it suits my needs and if it's updated regularly.

Then, looking at features, I choose it. If a dev takes 50 mods and make a rom with them, and that rom suits my needs, I like it. Even if the mods are from 50 other devels. OTOH, if a dev "invents" a mod that I don't need/like, takes a fully stock rom and put the mod on it, I don't like it even if it's "original".

There's no need to artificially separate "original" from "derived"; it's enough for user to look at specs and screenshots. What is really needed here is to separate roms/kernels/other mods here. A good rom will anyways go on forum's top by itself, with no need for doubtful classification.

And... what about if I just release a mod (like the call recording one I put some time ago....) and somebody includes in its rom ? Shall this rom put in "derived" just because of that ? IMHO, no. What I'd expect from rom builder is some "thank you", of course.

Max
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jlevy73:
@ svetius: Don't you think XDA should have clearly delineated guidelines before just throwing up this new sub-forum? Or maybe at least given developers the decency of a heads up? And why start with the SGS2 forum? Why not the Nexus One forums which has a 100X the amount of Rom's this forum does?
[Galaxy S II Android Development] CommanderThor:
This will cause more troubles than gains. I for example came back after 2 weeks tried to update my lightning ROM and didnt even found it for 10 minutes i though it was gone!

If something is to be done to make it more clear when one ROM is a base from anothers dev work it is a more strick rule for making this fack clear in first post. Like for example, make a rule like:

If you based your work on another dev work you put this exact words and fonts and colours at the begining of first post:

THIS "ROM/KERNEL/.." IS A MODIFICATION OF "Name of the ROM/KERNEL/.. which it is based on" from "dev nickname". Which is located "link to that section"

This way it will be way clearer than now, bacause now devs only mention this, or write in thanks sometimes small letters. If all "derivats" will have the exact same look like the above(Maybe even some logo?) it will be clear enough for everyone downloading and ppl will also check originals for information.

Way better solving the "derivate problem" than with subsections.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Araf:
I hope our dearest ADMIN is listening to all of opinions and immediately delete this sub-forum. I do believe that all of us here do not want to see our best dev/chef, who create amazing work for SGS2, running away. This sub forum only hurting their feelings...
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Nebucatnetzer:
What do you think about that:

First you write what it is like:

[Kernel]

[ROM]

Then you write the source like:

[SAMSUNG]

[AOSP]

[CM7]

[Villain]

After that what ever you like.

It would look like that:

[ROM][CM7][2.3.4 KG1] -=Ultra example 2.7 (happy community)=-

A lot of people do that in other sections already but if the mods would look at very carefully there would be no need for a two class system because everyone can see what it is.

But as I said before subsections for kernels and modems(modems don't need much space) ROMs and other stuff would be very nice.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jlevy73:
+1 to this. I'm already seeing Rom developers leaving the site or stop working on their projects because of this. Nothing good could possibly come of this.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Araf:
Really?!!

...and now it's hurting my feeling :(
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Pacifiste95:
I don't like this sub forum idea too..
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Fysi:
Who has left?

And the serious ones won't leave because they are the ones that complained about this. The majority of the ROMs in this section have basically been deodexed, had other devs tweaks put in them, themed and packaged into a flashable .zip. The only hard part of that process is the theming. I can understand there are a couple of ROMs in this section that need looking at in terms of getting a move (lite'ning comes to mind), but the Svetius has said that if you talk to him about moving one, they will look into it.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] DANDANA:
This subforum is one of the worst decisions made by moderators and is only flaming the users. I never saw in my old BlueAngel or my Touch Pro a need for something like this. Who wants to flash, will flash more than one ROM anyway to choose their one; and after couple of months will be just 3 or 4 ROM on top of the thread.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Fysi:
To be honest, it's flaming the 'fanboy' users more than the developers. I can understand if someone like Litenin is a bit annoyed but he literally has to ask Svetius to move his thread. And I can almost promise you that it'll get moved unless there is something seriously iffy about it.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] overground:
I think a major part of what this comes down to is the essence of "Themes".

Back in the G1 days, you had ROM's (or for quite a long period, a ROM {jesusfreke's}) and then you could flash your chosen theme on top of this.

I believe this should return. Either by a flashable .zip or via MetaMorph.

Keep these in the Themes & Apps section where they belong and keep them from clogging up the Dev section with what is essentially the same ROM over and over again with different themes.

Unfortunately, this doesn't touch on what seems to be the real gripe from people in this thread. So far, the major confusion I am seeing posted here is for ROMs based on the original work of others. AOSP / leak based / stock based / CM based, etc. I believe this is not going to be an easy undertaking.

That's why my vote is to put Themes back in their place...and start there.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] ado7980:
+1 that it´s true!!!
[Galaxy S II Android Development] egzthunder1:
To all,

I am not going to go into each individual rom or its specifics as to why they were moved. I can tell that there is a lack of understanding regarding the true purpose of this sub-forum. Please keep in mind that we are testing new ways of organizing the place, so that it is easier both for devs and end users to get the best out of xda.

Part of our rationale for creating this was the following:

If one person creates a tweak and adds it into his/her rom, then if things are not exactly going well with the tweak, feedback will go to the dev that created it. If the tweak starts getting applied onto every rom under the sun by people who cannot support it if feedback about bugs starts rolling in, then useful feedback that the dev may actually need to fix the tweak will certainly get lost in a sea of roms. The worst part is that the chef may or may not know what to do with the feedback that they are getting.

We do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings with the addition of this sub-forum. We don't think of "derived" roms to be lesser roms, particularly because they are based on proven, stable roms for the most part. We are trying this out so that the original tweaks, fixes, and bases can be found with ease rather than having to navigate through the forum. I know that some of you may say that you should use the "search" and read and whatnot. But, lets be honest for a second, one of the biggest causes for flaming on this site is the lack of reading/searching by people (n00bs and seniors alike).

If we made a mistake by moving a rom, we are open to appeals. Hell, we are only human and can make mistakes from time to time.

We will post some guidelines on this shortly (we actually have had them for a while, but just haven't had a chance to post them yet). This will help identify the content that will go where.

I hope this helps clarify things a bit.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Testraindrop:
Ok, but what about the suggestion made by someone earlier to split into

-ROMs

-Kernels

-Other developments (RTL etc...)

That would be organized and easier both for devs and users.

Proud user of Leomar75s "Derived second class" Rom
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jlevy73:
Thanks Overground, you make some good points here. Your point about themes is a good one but I believe times have evolved (or devolved depending on your perspective). Now Rom's are one stop shops with themes, additional apks, mods, etc all in one. Good, bad or otherwise people like convenience of not having to flash multiple items when they can get it all in one zip. And now it's come to a point where some theme makers only work with certain devs. Back when Enomther had the N1, manup would make specific themes only for his Rom.

The problem I see with this two class derivative thing is that every single Rom on here is forked from something. Miui rom make look original but it's really a nicely skinned CM rom. Because they don't comply with GPL we don't know what else is under the hood but no matter who the developer is they've based their Rom on some original source code (whether it's official, leaked, AOSP, CM, etc. etc.).

I came to XDA a couple years ago because of the community spirit of making our Android devices even better. With 500,000 new Android devices being activated daily, new Rom chefs are born by the minute. XDA should be fostering that development by encouraging people to share those efforts. Case in point is look at the Rootzwiki. That site was put up by some disgruntled XDA developers who said enough is enough. My point my friend is that Android is already fragmented enough, XDA should remain that place were people from all walks of life come together and share in the disease we call Android :) I just don't see how the derivative system is going to be of any benefit.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] MicioMax:
And what about if a rom contains one self-made tweak and some 20 other people ones, as almost all available roms do ? You put on "derived" because of the 20 grabbed tweaks or on "original" because of the self made ?

In both case it'll be a wrong choice. If you put in "original", a bug on one of 20 grabbed tweaks will suffer of same problem, and if you put on "derived" you won't solve the bugs into self made tweak.

If is *this* problem that you want to solve, it's simply matter of creating a "tweak" subforum and enforcing rom developers to put a reference of each tweak they use into rom feature description. It would be far more effective solution.

I see the separation into "first choice roms" an "cheap roms" the worst and useless solution.

Max
[Galaxy S II Android Development] LeoMar75:
You're right Infact I already prepared some docs that explain things and mod I am using.

But I will post these stuff only when my rom will be moved in the main dev page as it's not a derived rom at all.

I was the first one to get the hw accelerated browser working, together with a new own kernel and some other features you won't find in other rom. Nevertheless my rom has been labelled as a derived one. I built everything starting from the original firmware on samfirmware.

I was happy to share things here but now I am very pissed off.

I don't even have a donate button...

If this won't be possible to move my rom in the right place then please delete my thread here and I will leave my support.

Ciao

Inviato dal mio GT-I9100 usando Tapatalk
[Galaxy S II Android Development] egzthunder1:
Not to be a pain, but the whole point of an appeal is that you provide evidence of your work so that we can re-evaluate the decision in case we made a mistake by moving it there. If you have evidence that your work is original and would like to show us that this is in fact true, by all means, please share these documents with us so that we can better assess the situation.

Please let us see what you have prepared and we can take it from there. We are not doing any of this to discourage anyone, but rather to have the forum clean and easy to search through.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] veescript:
I think you made a mistake here:

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1153826

My rom is fully modified from Samsung's sources,

so it is NOT a derivative rom.

Thanks for your time.

I really hope to see this problem fixed.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jlevy73:
I'm still at a loss here. So what qualifies a Rom worthy of being in the main forum section. So if I deodex firmware and optimize APK's does that qualify? Because all that really is a derivation of Samsung's firmware. And yes, I'm looking at a Rom that has that in the changelog as well as busybox, su and CWM which none of those are original since those mods/tweaks were developed by Chains, Stericson and Koush.

Any why should the honus of an appeal be on the developer. All XDA is done is set some arbitrary rules that still are not defined. How about helping those developers out by at least releasing this so called documentation you have. So they appeal then what..this decision is based on some unknown secretive document that may or not have any relevance. No offense but this plan was poorly implemented and executed.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] overground:
That's why this is a test area and not forum wide. It's not the end of the world, and nothing has been stated as permanent. ;)
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jlevy73:
You're right :o
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Fysi:
To me he just sounds like he is trying to get his 15 minutes of fame, so regardless of how good a dev is, he is coming across as an entitled brat in my honest opinion. Heck I even pointed out earlier in the thread that you guys would be willing to move a thread if the dev gave evidence.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] mynameisjon:
This post illustrates very clearly the problem with XDA these days.

men from the boys?

And to think some rom devs complain about quadrant scripts and e-peens...

This is the biggest e-peen enlarger in the history of XDA.

And what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

If someone is accused for copying/deriving from another dev's ROM, why is it that it's the accused that has to prove his innocence?

The accuser should be the one who has to provide clear evidence of plagiarism, not the other way around.

Are the "derived" rom devs told who is accusing them?

Correct me if I'm wrong but reputation is everything when it comes to ROMs. No one is going to support a dev who has been accused of copying, even if that dev never copied anything but was accused and judged before any proper proof is provided.

This is summary judgement from a kangaroo court at it's finest.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Homam Ageel:
If u r right then the forum admin made a big mistake

all of my ROM are self built without depending on any other developer ROM

all are based on STOCK

and I found it in here also !!
[Galaxy S II Android Development] anonymous572:
I don't like new location of Litening Rom. Please get back it to developer forum.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] jerryneyk:
Please put Litening back in the main developer forum, this is not fair to someone who has spent a great deal of time developing an excellent and very stable ROM that he has offered for free!!!
[Galaxy S II Android Development] AndyCr15:
This is a test forum? Where is the real Samsung Galaxy SII forum the please.

Oh wait, it's not, this IS the real Samsung Galaxy SII forum and these are real people you're offending by randomly putting their hard work into the 'this ROM is copied' forum.

Really? That's what you think this does?
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Sim-1:
As others have already stated, I don't like the fact that Litening Rom is here and another one is in the main 3d when we all know it was a clear copy of the former.

Clearly something went wrong when the mod decided which ROM belonged where.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] bazzio:
what a BS this hard to find subforum.:(

And what is Litening ROM doing here??? derived?.... come on. Litening was the second ROM available for the Galaxy SII and certainly different from Villian. The Litening Rom topic has over 1 million views and >500 pages, so he must be doing something good and very popular. That sets sort of a standard don't you think? If it was only for that fact he should be on the "Real men" forum instead of here.

And yes you are pissing off the devs, read the comments here and see this quote frome Litepro's facebook....

"Sorry folks to say but the v2.3 will not be released today.

This is partly due to lack of time and the incident on xda which I totally disagree!"

So because of your actions i have to wait on a new version of a great ROM or maybe his last here......

btw if you want to clean up for better search, why not divide in ROM's, Kernels, Mods...etc.

Edit* from the Litening topic:
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Crucio_:
Alot of the comments in here at the moment seem to be coming from the rom supports as opposed to the ROM makers themselfs, If i was a ROM maker then i could see the benifit on what the mods are trying to do here, they are trying to protect your work.

As it has been stated this is a test and they are still sorting the section out. They seem to have not moved ROMs they know 100% have been the devs own work. They arent saying that the ROMs now in this section arent 100% made by the chef only that they dont know they are. All it will take is a message to a PM with the proof and they will look at moving it back.

Now you might ask, why should i have to prove my work. And all i could say to that is imagin if it was your work being copied w/o permission would you want someone getting donations for your efforts?

So dont rage too hard at the mods, they are only trying to make xda better for everyone.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Novek:
I've now closed my ROM thread, which as many others here wasn't a copy of others, but built from source .tar. I was the first with a release based on KF2, when all others still was on KF1. The first out with a CWM flashable ROM was bmarko82's ROM, which also happened to fall into this side-group. I asked him how he did it, and got permission to check out his updater-script. My ROM was then the 2nd compatible with CWM. Then followed Lite'ning, Villian and a few more (nothing bad said about pulser_g2, LitePRO or the others which are great devs, just used for this example).

I've also seen the rappidly increasing creations in the DEV-forum, but when there are tutorials for all aspects of the creation you must see it as natural.

This just reminds me of the old saying:"Shoot first, ask questions later."

Just for those that wants to see how a real derivative ROM should look like in my opinion, just check out my ROM for the LG 2X. It was, as stated on top, a modification of the MoDaCo ROM. I also didn't take donations for it because of this, and instead pointed people in the direction of Pauls donation page.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] Sim-1:
in this case failing miserably.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] mynameisjon:
So you jail first and ask questions later?

It doesn't matter what "purpose" of this sub-forum is. Because that's just it, a "sub" forum for "derived" (read: copied) roms.

Without even getting evidence of roms having been "derived" from another rom, the mods have decided to just move any rom that they see fit into this section.

Whether or not it was meant to "hurt the feelings" of devs or label them as copycats is irrelevant. You've already put a label on those devs who may or may not have "derived" their work from another rom.

If anything this is libelous, but "internet is serious business", so who cares right?

Reputation: ages to build, seconds to destroy.
[Galaxy S II Android Development] SGSLover:
Still the question...why moving ROM's they don't know "100% have been the devs own work" ??

When they don't know they can't "blaim" a dev for copying ... when they move a ROM to this section they must have a PROOF that it is "derivated"

and if they have an "anonymous note" they have to contact the DEV in first place so that he can take action and answer.

Innocent until proof of guilty !

And not "we don't know if the ROM is 100% selfmade...so let's move it"
[Galaxy S II Android Development] vicster:
+100000000

I Agree so much that would be so awsome, making it much easier to find exactly what you are looking for.
[HTC EVO 3D] -Apollo-:
First off, I love my E3D! Is it just me or is anyone else concerned that Sprint is not marketing this phone very good at all. I've seen the lame ping pong commercial and a NASCAR commercial for a contest. Is this truly the flagship phone for Sprint? I am still seeing EVO 4G commercials! Why are they not pumping this thing up? C'mon Sprint...convince me I have the best device on the Now Network! I know I do, but I want to hear it from you!!
[HTC EVO 3D] issafram:
Its because they are prepping for the Motorola and Samsung phones coming out. I think they are having commitment issues with the EVO. I love it tho
[HTC EVO 3D] RainyPudding:
There is the possibility that the apple vs htc case is involved somehow. I'm not sure though.

Sent from my smartphone IN 3D!
[HTC EVO 3D] irishgreen:
I know..they should be pumping out commercials with specs..How bout mentioning the qhd display or the blazing fast 1.2ghz dual cores..first and best for sprint..they have a ****ty advertising dept thats for sure!!
[HTC EVO 3D] Randy D:
Marketing

No on all of the above. There is no flagship phone coming out on any network including the Iphone 5 (what happened to the A5) anytime soon. The battle is not on selling the hardware, It's marketing price plans specifically data. Verizon just capped their plans, ATT did it as well, they are buying T-mobile or trying too. Sprint's stock won't get a boost from the EVO 3d, nor Motorola, Nor Samsung, maybe a little from Apple. But that is it. Not that Sprint is saying the phone sucks, but dual cores will be everywhere soon. (Buy Qualcomm) This is not a flagship like the EVO 4G or the Iphone was for Apple. Without a quad core 4 ghz 128 gb sd card qhd 2156x1080 auto stereoscopic (which the 4g was in its debut as far as innovation) no carrier has anything groundbreaking. They are selling plans, which is their competitive edge. And unless you own stock, and I do, what do you care about the commercials?
[HTC EVO 3D] SAShady:
3d is said to be releasing on T-mo later this year. So its not really exclusive to Sprint therefore lack of advertising
[HTC EVO 3D] -Apollo-:
I suppose you are right, it's more about plans now. As far as stock..I don't own shares but I believe my years of service with Sprint does give me a little room here to voice my concerns. And when I saw more commercials today for the OG 4G it just kinda bothered me, but you're right and I didn't think about that...it's about the plan more than the phone.
[HTC EVO 3D] jgalan14:
Oh wow this has nothing to do with it the damn phone been our for a good 3 weeks now and that no import sue just happened last week,

Now back to topic.well that's how sprint is, the do no how to advertise sometines, they do pay a lot of money tho , the EVO 3 D commercial were everywhere for the grand opening of harry potter movie ok Thursday night, unlike Verizon sprint doesn't know how to advertise some products, the new commercial about data caps is the best so far, and don't worry the phone is selling good so there will be good future for it :D

If you don't have an Evo3d well you don't have an Evo3d :P