On 16-05-05 01:49 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: >>>>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: >>>>> [snip] >> [snip] >>>> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not >>>> all that long ago that openwrt was in bad position and that something >>>> needed to change, and I think that may have been *part* of the reason >>>> accepting the status quo was no longer an acceptable answer. >>> >>> I don't believe that those who are in LEDE now couldn't do anything >>> (that means is was dying in their hands). Actually I'm still under >> >> I guess the real test will be what happens going forward - if LEDE dies >> for the same reasons OpenWrt was dying then that puts paid to LEDE's >> story; it it succeeds then it vindicates them. > > I hope the problems will be resolved and we will have one project.
That would be ideal, but I am doubtful, unless part(y|ies) involved have a major change of heart. > >>> impression that they controlled pretty much everything. And the part >>> they didn't control (what exactly?) was only important to them. >> >> I have no clue about this part, I'm not exactly in the loop. I think >> part of the problem has been that there is no means to add new >> developers, and that suggestions for adding developers have been opposed >> (that's a guess though). > > I don't think it was opposed. And I don't think it was a major problem. You sound like you know more than I about this. It was a guess. Only actual information will really answer the question. >>> But I guess we will never know full story, unless both parties are >>> willing to disclose all their private conversations related to >>> project. >> >> Yeah, pretty much we're left guessing unless there is more information >> given. I'm thinking the LEDE split was not like a conspiratorial split >> where everything is carefully planned out and orchestrated, but more of >> a rapid response (given that this isn't part of paid work for the most >> of them, and even then the LEDE split wouldn't likely be part of the >> job/contract) to something behind the scenes. Even if the LEDE team is >> unable to post to this list, I hope they give more information using the >> avenues available to them, once they get the chance to do so. > > Look at mailing list, commits and domain. > It was all started back in March and was not disclosed. That means the > plans were even earlier. Based on https://lede-project.org/wp-...@wwsnet.net.mbox it was merely an idea until early March, and again, to me indicates that things going on in the OpenWrt project that pushed the LEDE team to the breaking point, and which, contrary to Mike's email, were not being addressed (as Felix pointed out in his response, which I'm not sure if was accepted on this list, although it was in the To:). Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
