I discussed the issue with the team. They have put in a fix with the resolution but unfortunately it would not show up till the v1.16 is rolled out. The builds and partitions files inside recovery zips has created some confusion in the build process. Will keep you updated on the progress.
2 Likes
Thank you Manoj for your very quick answer. Any “bet” on the release of 1.16? I’ve seen that the milestone for it expires on 10 october but doubt it will be released next week.
I’d say that week 41 will see the beta state and week 42 the announcement of lauch… whishfull thinking.
That’s a bummer 
Been waiting so long already…
v1.16 should be coming out around mid October 
4 Likes
Will 1.16 include firmware partitions as well for T?
Will this fix also repair all the collateral damage done to the respective device sections on the images server for all those devices which don’t need any recovery zip, but may stick with the good old recovery img (solely)?
T has been a long time coming; in the March Week 12 ‘Development and Testing’ update, it was ‘1-2 months’.
It’s now Week 40, over 7 months later.
I’ve used (and $upported) /e/ since late 2020, but unlike previous well managed and successful rollouts, this one just doesn’t seem to be going so well.
Here’s hoping that it can now finally be pulled together & released successfully.
Thanks,
NickP
Looks like those are the instructions when using linux. What are the instructions when using Windows?
And concerning the release of /e/OS T: Is there anyone out, who wouldn’t call this a “kind of flop” so far?:
Initially announced (in Week 23, 2023: Development and Testing Updates ) for /e/OS v1.12 (released end of June), being now (as of /e/OS v.1.15) in a half-baked (i. e.: half-released) state (with essential release components still missing) it will obviously not be fully available before the advent of /e/OS v1.16 (ETA: around mid-October) (if so)!
Did that really have to be?
PS
To make things clear: Of course I’m much obliged to the /e/-team’s work on a “degoogled” Android, but I’m also of the opinion that (maybe with a little more diligence) especially this release could have been arranged in a somewhat more pleasing way.
Everybody needs to calm down. This is free software.
17 Likes
Perhaps, but this time (T) the process does seem to have fallen apart somewhat and it certainly isn’t the way that /e/ has worked so well before.
I do agree that we could have handled the /e/OS T release a lot better. Unlike the previous releases, this time we had to make additional changes not only in the documentation but on the build server and in the recovery zip files. The process did not work as expected, and I am not giving any excuses. My sincere apologies. The team is working at rectifying the issue and has released a code merge which should resolve the build files in the next release v1.16 which we expect to come out mid-October.
12 Likes
This is normal life in software development. We can be happy to have precise explanations about what has failed.
8 Likes
You could also just use TWRP. Then you don’t need e-recovery.
Yeah, I know that but thanks for trying to help me.
I used TWRP for the firsts /e OS phones almost 2 years ago… but I don’t need TWRP’s extra functions and would prefer using the simpler e-recovery.
There are also myriads of TWRPs versions (I have encountered some problems in the past due to that) and unfortunately don’t have enough time to fiddle with them.
I last used TWRP a few months ago when I had to revert an Oneplus 3T to original ROM as its replaced screen caused problems with /e OS.
1 Like
Maybe the /e/team could improve on communication (setting an agenda and stticking to it a bit better). Still, I am pretty happy with the long-awaited T. It is a good and stable release. That’s what really counts for me.
Unfortunately, it has become a pretty common bad habit in software development (not only in the Open Source world), to release new software rather sooner (but pretty beta-style) than later. Especially for a mobile OS that might run on daily drivers, this is really not desirable. So, persoally I am happy waiting longer and getting a reliable product.
7 Likes
Thank you for your candour Manoj.
Here’s hoping that the /e/ T release is now pulled together successfully and that development can move on.
NickP
Hello
Continuing the discussion from Week 38, 2023: Development and Testing Updates:
Is it the reason why my S9 showed this morning TWO updates ?
- 14 sept : 1.15-r-20230914330641
- 15 sept : 1.15-r-20230915330641
without any information , i choose to update with the older (14 sept) , then the last (15sept)
was my process correct ?
anyway , my phone seems OK 
P.S. when udpating the last firm (15 sept) eOS updater tolds me someting like " eOS packages are complex , you can only use the last update"
What has “free” to do with with good planing and communication? Is free software not meant to be managed in a good way?
To make this clear: It is irrelevant, whether it is free or not (the only implication is if you can make use of warranty or whatever). Discussion on positive but also negative points are always necessary. With this attitude no one should publish software because this cannot be the standard one is working for.
And finally a nice hint as well: Google Android is free as well, but if they have problems with their update process, no one would argue that it is free.
3 Likes