zlacker

>>patric+(OP)
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.

>>bri3d+W4
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.