[Q] Question about installing stock android apps topic

I'm running 4.4.2 on a rooted Note 3.
I was wondering... if I downloaded stock android apps like... dialer/contacts, camera, gallery, clock... can I just freeze the stock Samsung ones via Titanium Backup and use the stock android ones as default? Would that work normally? Anything I should take into consideration?

Thanks =)

What DON'T you like about the M8? topic

Couple software issues I don't care for. Mainly with the email. If you are sent a photo in email it automatically downloads it, which makes it show in gallery. The email app does not show folders. Way too much VZW bloat!

problem about active display update topic

active display can't get update from google play

the update only for 4.4?
or another question?

rooted MOTO X ATT

Attached Thumbnails

 

[Q] need help about how to backup app data topic

need help...how can i backup all my app data and the app itself?? and how to install the app again with the data...i have a lot of games in my phone but i need to install custom rom to it which will erase all my app and data...idont want to lose all my saved games :crying:

I have response from AT&T about unlock bootloader. Can your guys help me? topic

I have send and email claim about our Note 3 bootloader to randall.stephenson@att.com.

So i have an response from his secretary. As i'm living in Thailand i can't do anything to continue this.

Can you guys help me? Can you contact his secretary and claim her about our unhappiness about

our lock bootloader, I think we can make something happen.


Original & response email at Rep #2.

[Q] Question about Kernel (Note 2 Rogers) topic

Hey there people,

Read the FAQs and did some browsing already but not really finding the information or maybe not searching the right things.


So I'm looking at flashing the Ditto Note 3 ROM but not having any luck. Using TWRP 2.6.3.0 and currently on IOKP, and I've read the Ditto Note 3 page several times ( http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....php?t=2541860 ) and it mentions changing the kernel to an N7105 MK5 Kernel and I just don't understand that.

It looks like the ROM info states that Kernel is in the rom itself for when you flash, and they also say "Pick N7105 instead of I317, otherwise you will stuck at "Sumsung" glowing logo!!!" but I really do not want to screw up my note 2 by flashing for a different device.... Is that why the kernel is there?

All in all, I've been reading lots of information regarding this and not finding the right information. I'm getting more well versed in this information but some things like this go above my head. Any help would be amazing. :)

EDIT: Noticed that I have TWRP 2.6.3.0 instead of 2.6.3.1, how difficult is that to change and if changed do I lose my back-up of stock touchwiz rom?

about xperia c topic

Hai..!!! Im new in xda. So anybody can held about all of this. And I dnt know any sp plz help me

about xperia c topic

Hai..!!! Im new in xda. So anybody can held about all of this. And I dnt know anything so plz help me

About lockscreen effect drop water. topic

I saw this video about D802 kitkat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7T9chc5Nw

The lockscreen is cool, got drop water effect on lockscreen but mine have not this effect. How can I enable this effect guys? I'm using D80220a-ESA-XX :p

[Q] What way should I go about this? topic

Ideally, I want to be running the latest TouchWiz, and it would be great to get rid of some bloatware.

Before you even read this, please understand that I am a little frustrated with this entire situation and that I have spent hours upon hours of my life trying to figure this all out. I traded an iPhone 5 mid-September of 2013 for a pristine S4 - the owner of which used it in a few videos on his channel in YouTube. He said that it was rooted, but mentioned absolutely nothing about it having an unlocked bootloader. I vaguely remember him mentioning something about resetting it (keep in mind that however he went about this reset his very unusual porn collection was unscathed). From the day I got this phone the goodies in the About device section have remained exactly the same.

Model: Samsung-SGH-I337
Android version: 4.2.2
Baseband version: I337UCUAMF3 (bleeeehhhh)
Kernel version: 3.4.0-812098/ se.infra@sep-103 #1/ Wed Jun 5 15:45 (forward slash represents a line break)
Build number: JDDQ39.I337UCUAMF3 (once again... bleeehhhhh)

As far as the root goes, I don't think it is really there. I have used a few apps to check it, and it isn't being detected. I can't update to a newer firmware on my phone. FML!

Should I go ahead and follow the stickied guide here or do I need to take some alternate route? I just want to be able to run the latest firmware, and if I can work some nifty rooting magic after that to flash a TW rom to get rid of the bloatware? To my understanding MF3 means I can't use custom roms, which is fine with me, I like TW. :P


Looking forward to the replies. :)

[Q] Noob Question about firmware topic

Hello all, I'm sorry for this Noob question. What are the side effects of flashing a SM-N900P with a Verizon stock firmware (sm-N900V).

Any Flex users thinking at all about the S5 or M8? topic

I love my curve (Flex) and I know it's way to early to even think about another phone but being the phone junkie I am it's hard not to. Just wondering if any Flex users thought about trying a S5 or M8 when they come out? I doubt I would get another phone but I did get a good deal on my Flex and or have a jump to use so I wouldn't be spending more money. I used a S4 for about a year which is long for me. I'm just not feeling the rehashed design. I liked the HTC One, so I would probably like the M8.

Questions about latest ruu? topic

Just curious if anyone knew why HTC pulled the latest ruu? I know its available for download through alternate links, but wondering if there was a reason other than them planning on coming out with a newer version..

And curios to hear others impressions of the latest ruu. See different things through reading and see some people are seeing decreased signal and other issues. Wonder if those also pertain to he .4 ruu or were limited to the earlier ones.

Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app

Re: Question about Source Control topic

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Cameron Simpson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm particularly fond of "hg record" (or the similar extension, "hg
> crecord"), which lets you commit just parts of a modified file.
>
> When I'm in a debugging branch, it gradually turns into a huge diff.
> "hg record" lets me commit specific parts of a diff in a single
> commit. Every so often I spent a little while cleaning out related
> changes that are going to stay so that the final diffness consists
> of debug statements and hacks-in-progress; much smaller.
>
> So I'll pick a file and run an "hg record that-file" and pick all
> the diff parts that involve, say, removing some parameter. And in
> goes a single commit with just that feature change. Lather, rinse,
> repeat for other small concrete changes.
>
> And then my "hg diff" is back to being managably readable.
>

Absolutely agree. With git, the same functionality can be done by
making use of the staging area; you can either add an entire file (all
its changes), or do a partial add with "git add -p" or (more
conveniently, but requires a GUI) "git gui". I do that *very*
frequently. The only thing I would really like is a simple way to say
"stage/commit the lines from here to there"; with git gui, I can
either stage an entire hunk (everything until the next point where
there's enough unchanged lines that the context breaks) or a single
line (either an insertion or a removal). Gets tedious when you want to
stage half of a large hunk. But other than that, yes, the
functionality is awesome, letting you fidget your edits into readable
commits.

ChrisA

Re: Question about Source Control topic

On 24Mar2014 11:30, Chris Angelico <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Cameron Simpson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I'm particularly fond of "hg record" (or the similar extension, "hg
> > crecord"), which lets you commit just parts of a modified file.
> >
> > When I'm in a debugging branch, it gradually turns into a huge diff.
> > [...] Every so often I spent a little while cleaning out related
> > changes that are going to stay so that the final diffness consists
> > of debug statements and hacks-in-progress; much smaller. [...]
>
> Absolutely agree. With git, the same functionality can be done by
> making use of the staging area; you can either add an entire file (all
> its changes), or do a partial add with "git add -p" or (more
> conveniently, but requires a GUI) "git gui". [...]
> The only thing I would really like is a simple way to say
> "stage/commit the lines from here to there"; with git gui, I can
> either stage an entire hunk (everything until the next point where
> there's enough unchanged lines that the context breaks) or a single
> line (either an insertion or a removal). Gets tedious when you want to
> stage half of a large hunk. [...]

"hg record" has the same issue; you get to approve or ignore single
diff chunks.

However, there's no fundamental technical reason you can't pick and
choose arbitrary lines.

Based on things I've experienced use "hg record", it pretty clearly
walks the user through the diff picking/rejecting chunks, and then
temporarily replaces the target file(s) with versions containing
only the selected diff chunks, and commits the files. Then it
restores the original modified file, whose diff from the "tip" is
now reduced.

With some work, that could be done on a line-by-line basis.

Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <(E-Mail Removed)>

I've always been a big Greenaway fan - I've seen and enjoyed "The Falls" for
crying out loud. - Peter Alexander Merel <(E-Mail Removed)>

Re: Question about Source Control topic

On 24Mar2014 09:56, Chris Angelico <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Albert-Jan Roskam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > One more thing (so this is not entirely a double post!). While reading these books I found that the authors were pretty religious about Clean Commits. I mean, ok, it's not a good idea to do one huge monolithic commit each month, but I felt they were exaggerating. But maybe I'm wrong and clean commits become more important when the number of collaborators get bigger. It's just so easy to fix something, and e.g. correct that typo in a docstring while you're at it.
> >
>
> It's important even with a single editor. When you go back and look at
> a commit, you should be able to read the summary and know immediately
> whether a particular line in it should have been edited or not.
> Combining changes into a single commit makes that harder.
>
> Commits are cheap. Do more of 'em rather than less.

I'm particularly fond of "hg record" (or the similar extension, "hg
crecord"), which lets you commit just parts of a modified file.

When I'm in a debugging branch, it gradually turns into a huge diff.
"hg record" lets me commit specific parts of a diff in a single
commit. Every so often I spent a little while cleaning out related
changes that are going to stay so that the final diffness consists
of debug statements and hacks-in-progress; much smaller.

So I'll pick a file and run an "hg record that-file" and pick all
the diff parts that involve, say, removing some parameter. And in
goes a single commit with just that feature change. Lather, rinse,
repeat for other small concrete changes.

And then my "hg diff" is back to being managably readable.

Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <(E-Mail Removed)>

Wagner's music is better than it sounds. - Mark Twain

About installing custom recovery topic

Hello,

I'm about to install a custom recovery... I'm on stock 4.2.2 & rooted


Is there anyway to backup my current stock recovery??

[Question] Noob Question about Punkbuster topic

How does PB detects signatures ?

Re: Question about Source Control topic

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Frank Millman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have decided to stick with Mercurial, simply because that is what I used
> in my previous attempt and I felt comfortable with it.

That's the best reason for choosing, really.
https://github.com/Rosuav/Gypsum/commit/0f973
> Also I believe that
> Python itself uses it, so if it is good enough for them ...

Mercurial is used by a good number of high-profile projects. You're
probably thinking of CPython, the implementation, but
Python-the-language is built on top of Mercurial too, with such as the
PEP repo and the web site (although I understand the latest version of
the web site is managed in git). Both git and hg are used by plenty of
solid projects, including the Linux kernel (git's original purpose),
themselves (git's development is managed in git, hg's is managed in
hg), and plenty of other big projects. This is one reason why I always
push people to either of those two, rather than to an unknown or
proprietary system that might have problems.

> I realise now that my initial problem had nothing to do with SCM/VCS, and
> everything to do with my lack of knowledge of basic networking protocols. As
> I understand it now, if I want to share the repository over a network, I can
> choose between SSH and HTTP. I like the following quote from Joel Spolsky -
>
> "The quick-and-dirty way to make a central repository is to use Mercurial's
> built in web-server. ... I'm going to configure the server to allow anybody
> in the world to do anything they want to it. ... Needless to say, this is
> rather unsafe, but if you're on a nice protected LAN at work and there's a
> good firewall and you trust everybody on your LAN, this is reasonably OK."
>
> This describes my situation well, so to keep things simple I will start with
> this.

Yep! People complain loudly about the insecurity of protocols like
FTP, but properly-firewalled networks with all members trusted are
more common than you might think - all you need is a basic home-grade
NAT router and a sysadmin whose competence exceeds the sensitivity of
your content.

> To recap my basic setup, I have machine A which holds the source directory,
> machine B which is used to edit the program, and machines B and C which are
> both used to run the program.
>
> Initially, to prove that I understand the concept, I propose to install
> Mercurial on all three machines. Machine A will hold the central repository,
> which I will clone onto machines B and C. After editing on B, I will 'push'
> to A, and then from C 'pull' from A to get the latest version.

Right. That's a nice standard setup. There'll be plenty of tutorials
that can walk you through setting that up. (Don't forget, btw, that
most Linux distributions will include Mercurial - just "apt-get
install mercurial" or "yum install mercurial".)

> If this works, I will simplify it to make my life easier. My first thought
> was to remove the clone from machine C and set up an nfs share pointing to
> the working directory on machine A, so I don't need the 'pull' step. Then I
> thought, why not just point to the working directory on machine B, so then I
> can test the changes on C directly, without even having to 'push'. I realise
> that this is defeating the object of version control, but I think it makes
> sense. I will still use version control to maintain a full history of the
> project on machine A.

It doesn't defeat the object of version control as long as you always
make logical, conceptual commits. However, it does introduce a
dependency (the NFS share) and the associated messes of file locking
and so on, so I personally would prefer to deploy a file-transfer
system, maybe like the one I described earlier, or maybe something
more like FTP. But do whatever makes sense for you.

> Over the last few years I have frequently 'trashed' whole sections
> of my code and rewritten them, which I suspect would not endear me to
> someone attempting to collaborate with me. However, the broad framework is
> starting to settle down now, so I am starting to think about putting it out
> there.

That's not in itself a problem. This commit made quite a few changes,
all at once:

https://github.com/Rosuav/Gypsum/commit/0f973

It does mean that anyone who's collaborating with you will need to
keep a close eye on what goes on, but that's true of any fast-moving
project. As things get more stable, it'll be easier to join in.

ChrisA

Re: Question about Source Control topic

"Frank Millman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lg6s09$irl$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all
>
> I know I *should* be using a Source Control Management system, but at
> present I am not. I tried to set up Mercurial a couple of years ago, but I
> think I set it up wrongly, as I got myself confused and found it more of a
> hindrance than a help. Now I am ready to try again, but I want to avoid my
> earlier mistakes.
>

Many thanks to all for the responses. I have a much better feel for it now.
If anything, I have moved from being confused because I did not understand
it, to being confused because there are so many options I am not sure which
to select. However, I consider this to be progress!

I have decided to stick with Mercurial, simply because that is what I used
in my previous attempt and I felt comfortable with it. Also I believe that
Python itself uses it, so if it is good enough for them ...

Before actually plunging in, I would like to summarise what I think I have
understood, and what steps I propose to take.

I realise now that my initial problem had nothing to do with SCM/VCS, and
everything to do with my lack of knowledge of basic networking protocols. As
I understand it now, if I want to share the repository over a network, I can
choose between SSH and HTTP. I like the following quote from Joel Spolsky -

"The quick-and-dirty way to make a central repository is to use Mercurial's
built in web-server. ... I'm going to configure the server to allow anybody
in the world to do anything they want to it. ... Needless to say, this is
rather unsafe, but if you're on a nice protected LAN at work and there's a
good firewall and you trust everybody on your LAN, this is reasonably OK."

This describes my situation well, so to keep things simple I will start with
this.

To recap my basic setup, I have machine A which holds the source directory,
machine B which is used to edit the program, and machines B and C which are
both used to run the program.

Initially, to prove that I understand the concept, I propose to install
Mercurial on all three machines. Machine A will hold the central repository,
which I will clone onto machines B and C. After editing on B, I will 'push'
to A, and then from C 'pull' from A to get the latest version.

If this works, I will simplify it to make my life easier. My first thought
was to remove the clone from machine C and set up an nfs share pointing to
the working directory on machine A, so I don't need the 'pull' step. Then I
thought, why not just point to the working directory on machine B, so then I
can test the changes on C directly, without even having to 'push'. I realise
that this is defeating the object of version control, but I think it makes
sense. I will still use version control to maintain a full history of the
project on machine A.

I appreciated Mark's comments about hosting his project on code.google.com -
not just the mechanics, but the benefits that he experiences from sharing
his code. I am actually getting closer to being able to do that with my
project. Over the last few years I have frequently 'trashed' whole sections
of my code and rewritten them, which I suspect would not endear me to
someone attempting to collaborate with me. However, the broad framework is
starting to settle down now, so I am starting to think about putting it out
there. Then the question is which hosting service to use - there are so many
of them. I will probably come back here for more advice when I get to that
stage.

Frank