Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, James Feeney  wrote:
>
> OpenLEDE

I do agree that a more distinct name change than "lede" is needed for
the added googlejuice. To me though the openthis, openthat,
libretheotherthing meme has got kind of old in recent years, although
it does seem to end up hinting at clearer branding

ClearWrt?

I also tend to think that retiring and redirecting openwrt to a new
name would be good, if the lede folk are intending to take on IoT.

> The name both combines the project names and conveys that sense of greater
> transparency that was, in part, the purpose of the LEDE project.

Btw:

CeroWrt is presently dead. I'd gladly hand it over to someone to make
good use of it

"Cero" - the spanish word for zero.  Zero "Warts" = aiming for perfection.

or...

BikeShedWrt?



> ___
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[James Feeney]

OpenLEDE

The name both combines the project names and conveys that sense of greater
transparency that was, in part, the purpose of the LEDE project.

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 08:28:25AM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
> On 27/12/2016 08:08, David Lang wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:31 PM, John Crispin  wrote:
> >>> i am still very much in favour of having 2 trees, one stable and one dev
> >>> tree. this would allow everyone to choose what they think fits their
> >>> needs best.
> >>
> >> I too have liked this idea since I first heard it.
> > 
> > tl;dr this is a "I think you should do a lot of boring work" plan.
> > nobody is volunteering to do the work
> > 
> 
> we already have 2-3 volunteers and will most have a release branch that
> we maintain.

> i think you somewhat misunderstood what the discussion here is.
>
that may well be, but he clearly understood it the same way i did. that
may be because some terms are being used here in somewhat unconventional
ways, and some suggestions (as i understood them) sound really weird to
someone accustomed to usual release processes.

first, stop talking about trees. it's branches. whether a particular
branch lives in a separate repository ("tree") or not isn't relevant
from a technical side, because dvcs. however, it matters a lot from both
the practical and perception sides, so i *strongly* suggest that
anything that the re-merged project considers "official" lives in the
central source.git repository.

essentially as a corollary to that, you *positively* do not give
different branches different project names. specifically, this clearly
eliminates openwrt and lede as branch names.

nobody would contest the use of strictly controlled maintenance branches
which are associated with particular releases. the process for these is
typically cherry-picking a rather limited number of proven fixes from
the development branch, but with some discipline it's also possible to
apply fixes in the maintenance branch first and forward-merge them
subsequently. compare http://wiki.qt.io/Branch_Guidelines

so far, that leaves us with "master", "10.03", "12.09", "14.07",
"15.05", and (prospectively) "17.01".

now, what *seems* to have been suggested (but apparently was not) was
that "lede" would be the name of an *additional* branch which would
essentially be a shared staging branch.
mind you, the git project itself actually has such a thing (even two,
with different degrees of maturity) - see
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
however, as david noted - and i totally agree with it - it's entirely
unrealistic to have such a thing in a project with the breadth and size
of a linux distribution.


now, as i'm already writing, i'll also utter an opinion on the project
naming thingie.

openwrt is, indeed, a very strong brand in its market. as somebody else
suggested, even if the project wanted to change it, the brand's power
needs to be leveraged to bootstrap a possible successor.
"openwrt" looks cool in writing, and it sounds cool when said in german.
it's an utter tongue twister when said in "proper" english, which is _a
bit_ of an impediment marketing-wise.

lede is no brand at all, and the designated pronouciation kills any
chance of it becoming a brand. it's just too generic, as also already
noted by somebody else.

now, there is apparently a desire to reposition openwrt in the broader
embedded linux market, basically direct competition with openembedded.
my personal suggestion would be to stay focused. it's nice to support
more diverse hardware, and just fine if it comes basically for free (be
it because it's just so easy, or because a newcomer invested into it),
but for a project with openwrt's resources it simply doesn't make too
much sense to leave its primary niche. and the branding should reflect
that.

so my personal suggestion would be to stay with openwrt, and actually
release "designated driver". let "lede" remain the reboot of the
community (and associated processes), not of the product.

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Weedy]

So I can;t find the exact mail I was going to reply to a few days ago
(WH does the android gmail client force send html...) so I'm
nuking all context. Sorry.

I have been quite happy with the LEDE name change.
I'm been a OpenWRT user since before WR. I will be the first to agree
that the name OpenWRT has built a following, and a meaning. But as
someone whose used and built project on top of OpenWRT it's also
brought up questions in the past few years. Don't pretend like OpenWRT
means sunshine and rainbows.

So the project gets forked and I'm thinking "well f**k". But since
then I've only experienced positive things from LEDE. I have to make
distclean MUCH less to keep up with master, my home router seems to
perform better, my WiFi for sure performs better, productivity in the
tree seems like it's up/faster. In the mean time the OpenWRT commit
log has slowed to a crawl. While we here and preparing for a release
OpenWRT seems like they are going to coast on CC for at least half of
2017.

I've had a souring opinion of "OpenWRT" for a while, and instead of
treating the split like a kick in the pants what's left of OpenWRT
seems to have given up.

Someone brought up OpenELEC/LibreELEC. Go look at OpenELEC
development, it's dead. LibreELEC has gotten a couple full releases
out since the split and is snowballing to make improvements faster.
Whatever project management struggles happened to cause the split,
"the new guard" is now unimpeded and seems to be making great
progress.


I'm not a dev, I'm just a loud user with opinions. It's not my place
to dictate what happens in this project.
But whatever the decision ends up being as a user I just don't want to
go back to the OpenWRT/LEDE of 6 months ago. 6 months ago I had a less
performant router that likes to panic randomly. Today I can almost
weekly update my router and get an operating system that FEELS better
on my laptop/phone almost every time. I have less buffer bloat, I have
better QoS, I have HOPE in the project again.

So yeah, OpenWRT means something to me, but LEDE has in this short
amount of time come to mean more POSITIVE things to me. I'm actually a
little annoyed at seeing so many people immediately wanting to dump
LEDE and run back to OpenWRT especially with them seemingly not having
learned from the mistakes that caused the split in the first place.

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 27/12/2016 08:08, David Lang wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:31 PM, John Crispin  wrote:
>>>
>> [..]
>>> i am still very much in favour of having 2 trees, one stable and one dev
>>> tree. this would allow everyone to choose what they think fits their
>>> needs best.
>>
>> I too have liked this idea since I first heard it.
> 
> 
> This sounds good at first listen, but doesn't actually work.

Hi David,

again you start your contribution with, "there is only one way and no
alternatives" this somewhat kills the discussion.

> 
> tl;dr this is a "I think you should do a lot of boring work" plan.
> nobody is volunteering to do the work
> 

we already have 2-3 volunteers and will most have a release branch that
we maintain. i think you somewhat misunderstood what the discussion here
is. the discussion is not whether there will be 2 trees, but how to name
them and what domains to host the under ... and it is off-topic really.

no one mentioned that one half of the team will do one tree and the
other the other tree. there will be people putting their work focus on
this but that does not mean they wont be doing other work that they were
previously involved in. also making it sound like that this separation
will be based on current project membership status is just false and
paints a really wrong and counter productive image of the on going
discussion.

the statements from the owrt side that you are quoting were never made.
something similar was said but your representation is simply false

i agree on the part that we need to provide a stable tree for people to
trust it, but your "it'll be out dated" is just painting the world black
and i simply don't agree with that statement.

John

> people don't want a 'stable branch' with only known good stuff in it,
> they want a 'stable' branch with all the latest features added, but none
> of the bugs that go with those features.
> 
> If you could identify the bugs, they wouldn't be buggy in the bleeding
> edge version.
> 
> It also takes a lot of manpower to maintain the stable branch, and those
> people are not able to work on anything new and interesting (because
> such development is, by definition, not yet stable)
> 
> It also generates a LOT of support questions, esepecially of the "why
> doesn't X work in the stable branch yet"
> 
> The OpenWRT folks have said that they are not willing to become the
> 'stable' developers, if they merge the trees/projects, they want to be
> able to work on whatever they want without being tied down with some
> sort of 'stable' criteria
> 
> If you think it's a great idea, organize a team to make stable versions
> of what OpenWRT/LEDE release. If you are able to sustain the results for
> a few versions, people may start to trust and use it (or they may just
> use the more up-to-date tree)
> 
> David Lang (who has no authority within LEDE or OpenWRT)

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:


On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:31 PM, John Crispin  wrote:



[..]

i am still very much in favour of having 2 trees, one stable and one dev
tree. this would allow everyone to choose what they think fits their
needs best.


I too have liked this idea since I first heard it.



This sounds good at first listen, but doesn't actually work.

tl;dr this is a "I think you should do a lot of boring work" plan. nobody is 
volunteering to do the work


people don't want a 'stable branch' with only known good stuff in it, they want 
a 'stable' branch with all the latest features added, but none of the bugs that 
go with those features.


If you could identify the bugs, they wouldn't be buggy in the bleeding edge 
version.


It also takes a lot of manpower to maintain the stable branch, and those 
people are not able to work on anything new and interesting (because such 
development is, by definition, not yet stable)


It also generates a LOT of support questions, esepecially of the "why doesn't X 
work in the stable branch yet"


The OpenWRT folks have said that they are not willing to become the 'stable' 
developers, if they merge the trees/projects, they want to be able to work on 
whatever they want without being tied down with some sort of 'stable' criteria


If you think it's a great idea, organize a team to make stable versions of what 
OpenWRT/LEDE release. If you are able to sustain the results for a few versions, 
people may start to trust and use it (or they may just use the more up-to-date 
tree)


David Lang (who has no authority within LEDE or OpenWRT)

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:31 PM, John Crispin  wrote:
>
[..]
> i am still very much in favour of having 2 trees, one stable and one dev
> tree. this would allow everyone to choose what they think fits their
> needs best.

I too have liked this idea since I first heard it. Upstream Wi-Fi has
a "wireless-testing" branch, which keeps merging in new development.
It's not really meant to be "unstable" but there is higher risk of
breakage than a stable branch that has had far more use and testing.

In another thread you mentioned how the name "lede" came from the lead
article in print -- the analogy kind of fits.
* new development goes into the OpenWrt LEDE branch -- latest code,
latest "news"
* new releases (since the split) could be called "version 1.x --
OpenWrt LEDE edition" (or continue alphabetical letters as before if
you want)
* for those "in the know" (devs on these mailing lists), the extra
"LEDE" branding matching the enhancements enabled because of the split
seems beneficial (project image and growth enhanced)
* for those "in the dark", more casual or ad hoc users, the http
redirect seems not just beneficial, but downright important to help
those casual users find a new stable release from the LEDE branch,
once it is available. (marketing 101 -- ability to pop to the top of a
google search is more important than how someone pronounces your
project).

I think you (and the other big contributors) are doing an excellent
job. And I admire your continued emphasis on transparency and open
communication. It makes the project stronger and I see a lot of
positive responses from the community, because of that openness.

A merge of effort, via an agreement by all you talented developers to
work together, under contribution guidelines and processes that you
can all follow and feel good about, would make for a Happy New Year!

good luck!
kg

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Philip Prindeville]

On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Russell Senior  wrote:

>> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli  writes:
> 
>>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
>>> change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
>>> the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the
>>> popularity of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for
>>> Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the
>>> merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT
>>> folks and SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT
>>> or alike.
> 
> Florian> The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by
> Florian> SPI, so we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I
> Florian> meant to say here, nothing more.  -- Florian
> 
> Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going to be
> needed, but I can't help but think of this:
> 
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
> 
> 
> PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)
> 
> 

OpenBikeShed?

"All the convenience with none of the security..."

-Philip

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[James Feeney]

On 12/22/2016 12:27 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> or do we want to build a "one stop shop" for embedded linux

Yes, we do?

When I read that, my gut reaction was "Oh yeah - embedded linux."

I remember, when I first heard about "LEDE", as distinct from OpenWRT, I was
attracted to the broader focus on "embedded linux", in contrast to the "wireless
router" focus implied by "OpenWRT".  That promise of embedded device support is
still my mental rationalization for choosing LEDE over OpenWRT.

There is something to be said for the "evolved" branding of the LEDE name.  How
important is this focus on "embedded linux", which implies a linux distribution
that runs, additionally, on devices that are *not* wireless routers?  There are
a great number of single-board computers that exist now that did not exist when
OpenWRT was first released in 2004.

The original WRT54G was first released in December 2002.
The first generation (Raspberry Pi 1 Model B) was released in February 2012.

Consider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers

Does LEDE have builds for all of these products?


I imagine that the stable/bleeding-edge issue might be addressed in the same way
as other projects which have designated "long term support" versions.


Just for fun:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lede

James

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 19:57, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
 we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree
 and
>>> use
 openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the
 openwrt
>>> folks
 made it a condition for the merger that this may not be the case. i
 think
>>> the
 sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one project/tree or
 dont merge"
>>>
>>> This sentence doesn't sound very constructive. Anyhow:
>>
>> sorry if you feel that way, i am trying to be constructive and inclusive
> to the
>> best of my ability. just because i am nosy, why do you think this is not
>> constructive ?
> 
> John, my criticism was for the people saying: "merge to one project/tree or
> don't merge".
> Not for you!
> 
> Bye.
> 

ah ok, makes sense now, thanks for elaborating, i was a little suprised :-)

John

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Giuseppe Lippolis]

> >> we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree
> >> and
> > use
> >> openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the
> >> openwrt
> > folks
> >> made it a condition for the merger that this may not be the case. i
> >> think
> > the
> >> sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one project/tree or
> >> dont merge"
> >
> > This sentence doesn't sound very constructive. Anyhow:
> 
> sorry if you feel that way, i am trying to be constructive and inclusive
to the
> best of my ability. just because i am nosy, why do you think this is not
> constructive ?

John, my criticism was for the people saying: "merge to one project/tree or
don't merge".
Not for you!

Bye.


___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 19:00, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
>>> When I decided where to port my contribution I considered the "focus 
>>> on stability and functionality" more interesting than the "bleeding 
>>> edge functionality", therefore I selected LEDE.
>>> Now I understand that a merge is ongoing.
>>> Can I ask to the people taking care about the merge how the 
>>> trade-off between stability and bleeding edge is solved?
>>
>> we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree 
>> and
> use
>> openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the openwrt
> folks
>> made it a condition for the merger that this may not be the case. i 
>> think
> the
>> sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one project/tree or dont 
>> merge"
> 
> This sentence doesn't sound very constructive. Anyhow:

sorry if you feel that way, i am trying to be constructive and inclusive
to the best of my ability. just because i am nosy, why do you think this
is not constructive ?

> I'm sure that the owrt folks have good reason to merge, It is a question of
> transparencies, can they share with us these reasons?
> And most important, what are they proposing to trade-off between stability
> and bleeding edge?
> 
> In my opinion a conflict unsolved is simple an unsolved conflict. 
> If the merge means restore the status before the split, the probability to
> have a new split is high.
>  

indeed, this is the case. either we do find a consensus or the merge is
at the risk of resulting in the old ways. the reboot happened in order
for us to be able to have a fresh start, going back to the old way of
doing things certainly needs to be prevented as we know where the old
way of doing things has lead and will most likely lead again in the mid
term.

> Therefore in absence of valid proposal  to trade-off, my advice is to
> identify the perimeter where really make sense to merge and on the top of
> this common base built two different project, one focused on the "stability"
> and the second on the "bleeding edge".
> 

yes, that would need to be discussed and resolved, which is why we have
had several chat already. resolving the issues is most certainly at the
core of what we are trying to achieve,

>>> At the end the market share will answer if a single product make 
>>> sense or not.
> 
> Anyhow on this point I hope that the discussion can be transparent and
> extended to the community.
> 

transparency has a high value to us and is core to what we are trying to
achieve with the new LEDE rules. i think our track record so far proves
that we do mean this very serious. this is why it was very important to
us to publish the meeting protocols, allowing everyone to have an
insight to what is going on.

John

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Giuseppe Lippolis]

> > When I decided where to port my contribution I considered the "focus 
> > on stability and functionality" more interesting than the "bleeding 
> > edge functionality", therefore I selected LEDE.
> > Now I understand that a merge is ongoing.
> > Can I ask to the people taking care about the merge how the 
> > trade-off between stability and bleeding edge is solved?
> 
> we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree 
> and
use
> openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the openwrt
folks
> made it a condition for the merger that this may not be the case. i 
> think
the
> sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one project/tree or dont 
> merge"

This sentence doesn't sound very constructive. Anyhow:
I'm sure that the owrt folks have good reason to merge, It is a question of
transparencies, can they share with us these reasons?
And most important, what are they proposing to trade-off between stability
and bleeding edge?

In my opinion a conflict unsolved is simple an unsolved conflict. 
If the merge means restore the status before the split, the probability to
have a new split is high.
 
Therefore in absence of valid proposal  to trade-off, my advice is to
identify the perimeter where really make sense to merge and on the top of
this common base built two different project, one focused on the "stability"
and the second on the "bleeding edge".

> > At the end the market share will answer if a single product make 
> > sense or not.

Anyhow on this point I hope that the discussion can be transparent and
extended to the community.

Bye,
Giuseppe.


___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Paul Oranje]

Nevertheless, wouldn’t it be wise to ask SPI to also handle trademark issues 
around the name lede(-project) ?

Irrespective of the outcome of this discussion about which name to use when the 
projects would be merged, having some protection around the name seems wise and 
SPI exists for that very reason 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest). BTW, the TM 
record for LEDE mentioned by Dave has USPTO serial number 86650406.

And about what name to choose, the banner (shell) for LEDE looks much, much, 
nicer than that of OpenWRT.
To leverage the general fame of OpenWRT, as already suggested by John, 
redirects and keeping archives of (outdated) documentation would probably 
suffice.

— 
Paul Oranje


> Op 22 dec. 2016, om 08:17 heeft John Crispin  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/12/2016 04:45, Dave Taht wrote:
>> Lede trademark...
>> 
>> Published for Opposition:December 20, 2016
>> 
>> sigh.
>> 
> 
> *slap on the wrist or top posting*
> 
> the project is called lede-project and not lede for a reason ;)
> 
>   John
> 





___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:58, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:
> 
>> On 22/12/2016 09:42, David Lang wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:
>>>
> Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
> but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
> point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the
> historical
> reasons for the name.

 a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...
>>>
>>> Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT
>>> docs and/or forum threads?
>>>
>>> That's a high cost.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>
>> it is something worth considering if the alternative content is
>> available and easy to look up and if we keep archives in ro mode of
>> existing content.
>>
>> claiming that there is only one option and no alternatives is just not
>> constructive and wont lead to a broad discussion during which we can
>> find a consensus.
> 
> sorry, I did not mean to imply there is only one option.
> 
> I think there is a lot of value in the OpenWRT name and all the links
> around the web that refer to it. So there is a huge cost to going with a
> different name.
> 
> IMHO, this makes it an easy decision to make, but not the only one
> possible.

well i think you are just not considering options properly but simply
claiming that this is the easy road to take so lets take it. i find your
mail to be the contrary of something that can be used to start a broad
discussion which will hopefully lead to a consensus.

John



___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:


On 22/12/2016 09:42, David Lang wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:


Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
reasons for the name.


a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...


Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT
docs and/or forum threads?

That's a high cost.

David Lang


it is something worth considering if the alternative content is
available and easy to look up and if we keep archives in ro mode of
existing content.

claiming that there is only one option and no alternatives is just not
constructive and wont lead to a broad discussion during which we can
find a consensus.


sorry, I did not mean to imply there is only one option.

I think there is a lot of value in the OpenWRT name and all the links around the 
web that refer to it. So there is a huge cost to going with a different name.


IMHO, this makes it an easy decision to make, but not the only one possible.

David Lang

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:42, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
>>> but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
>>> point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
>>> reasons for the name.
>>
>> a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...
> 
> Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT
> docs and/or forum threads?
> 
> That's a high cost.
> 
> David Lang

it is something worth considering if the alternative content is
available and easy to look up and if we keep archives in ro mode of
existing content.

claiming that there is only one option and no alternatives is just not
constructive and wont lead to a broad discussion during which we can
find a consensus.

John

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:


Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
reasons for the name.


a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...


Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT docs 
and/or forum threads?


That's a high cost.

David Lang

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:40, David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
>> - While brands have value, you can change a name without losing all the
>>  brand recognition.  I'm thinking here of cases like XBMC->Kodi or
>>  OpenOffice->LibreOffice.
> 
> I would point at OpenOffice -> LibreOffice as a failure of name changes.
> 
> David Lang

again, they did not change the name as a team but were split. if we
choose to not use owrt but some different name then a simple http
redirect can help solve the problem.

John

> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-de...@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:36, David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Dave Taht wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>>
 From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
 part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
 cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
 positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
 to the development moving forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>
>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>> sense.
> 
> I'll point out OpenOffice vs LibreOffice and the fact that years after
> development of OO has really stopped, people are still finding it and
> downloading it instead of LO (it's replacement)
> 
> there's a lot of stuff out there pointing at OpenWRT, unless you are
> going to replace all the OpenWRT stuff with pointers to LEDE, you are
> better off taking advantage of the millions of references to OpenWRT.
> 
> David Lang
> 
> Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
> but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
> point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
> reasons for the name.

a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...

John




___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Stefan Monnier wrote:


- While brands have value, you can change a name without losing all the
 brand recognition.  I'm thinking here of cases like XBMC->Kodi or
 OpenOffice->LibreOffice.


I would point at OpenOffice -> LibreOffice as a failure of name changes.

David Lang

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Dave Taht wrote:


On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:


From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
to the development moving forward.



I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.


Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
sense.


I'll point out OpenOffice vs LibreOffice and the fact that years after 
development of OO has really stopped, people are still finding it and 
downloading it instead of LO (it's replacement)


there's a lot of stuff out there pointing at OpenWRT, unless you are going to 
replace all the OpenWRT stuff with pointers to LEDE, you are better off taking 
advantage of the millions of references to OpenWRT.


David Lang

Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer, but Deb 
and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some point the fact 
that a name is known matters far more than the historical reasons for the name.


___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:25, James Feeney wrote:
> 
> On 12/22/2016 12:27 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>> or do we want to build a "one stop shop" for embedded linux
> 
> Yes, we do?

!

[...]

> Consider:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers
> 
> Does LEDE have builds for all of these products?

Some but not all *yet*

> 
> 
> I imagine that the stable/bleeding-edge issue might be addressed in the same 
> way
> as other projects which have designated "long term support" versions.
> 
> 
> Just for fun:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lede
> 

we passed that link around when we first started to consider names. the
actual choice was based on the print media term "the lede article"

John

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 08:24, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
> Dear All,
> I started to contribute to LEDE recently and after the spin-off.
> When I decided where to port my contribution I considered the "focus on
> stability and functionality" more interesting than the "bleeding edge
> functionality", therefore I selected LEDE.
> Now I understand that a merge is ongoing.
> Can I ask to the people taking care about the merge how the trade-off
> between stability and bleeding edge is solved?

we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree and
use openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the
openwrt folks made it a condition for the merger that this may not be
the case. i think the sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one
project/tree or dont merge"

i am still very much in favour of having 2 trees, one stable and one dev
tree. this would allow everyone to choose what they think fits their
needs best.

> 
> In my opinion a coordination/collaboration between the two project is for
> sure a benefit for both, but having a single product will generate an
> ambiguous and ineffective trade-off.
> Why don't keep two product line with different focus on stability and
> bleeding edge and merge what really make sense for both?
> 
> At the end the market share will answer if a single product make sense or
> not.
> 
> By the way where can I find the minute of the meetings?

they were posted last night on the mailing lists

John

> 
> Bye.
> 
> 
> ___
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
> 

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 08:06, Russell Senior wrote:
>> "Val" == Val Kulkov  writes:
> 
>>> Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going
>>> to be needed, but I can't help but think of this:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)
> 
> Val> Now, please try to explain how to pronounce OpenLEDE and make sure
> Val> the correct pronunciation sticks :-)
> 
> It doesn't matter how they pronounce it, as long as they can find the
> IRC channel ;-)
> 
> 

i like OpenLEDE, sounds catchy. however it is to be expected that
although the name probably is only 10% of the real problem, 90% of
discussion will circulate around it. i would like to remind people of
the backfire/afterburner/... release which was stalled for almost a year
because of the name discussion.

the name is only really important to marketing droid wanting to generate
a cash flow. the question is, do we do the work so that companies can
reduce time to market/expenses and increase quality or do we want to
build a "one stop shop" for embedded linux

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Giuseppe Lippolis]

Dear All,
I started to contribute to LEDE recently and after the spin-off.
When I decided where to port my contribution I considered the "focus on
stability and functionality" more interesting than the "bleeding edge
functionality", therefore I selected LEDE.
Now I understand that a merge is ongoing.
Can I ask to the people taking care about the merge how the trade-off
between stability and bleeding edge is solved?

In my opinion a coordination/collaboration between the two project is for
sure a benefit for both, but having a single product will generate an
ambiguous and ineffective trade-off.
Why don't keep two product line with different focus on stability and
bleeding edge and merge what really make sense for both?

At the end the market share will answer if a single product make sense or
not.

By the way where can I find the minute of the meetings?

Bye.


___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Alexis Green]

OpenLEDE -  /ˈōpənlēdē/

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Russell Senior
 wrote:

>
> Val> Now, please try to explain how to pronounce OpenLEDE and make sure
> Val> the correct pronunciation sticks :-)
>
> It doesn't matter how they pronounce it, as long as they can find the
> IRC channel ;-)
>
>
> --
> Russell Senior, President
> russ...@personaltelco.net

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 04:45, Dave Taht wrote:
> Lede trademark...
> 
> Published for Opposition:December 20, 2016
> 
> sigh.
> 

*slap on the wrist or top posting*

the project is called lede-project and not lede for a reason ;)

John

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Val Kulkov  wrote:
>> On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli  wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
 On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>
>>> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
>>> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>>> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>>> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
>>> to the development moving forward.
>>
>>
>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>
> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
> sense.
>

 +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some
 downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet)
 were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of
 OpenWRT project.

 I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
 significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.

 But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
 brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
>>>
>>> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
>>> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
>>> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
>>> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
>>> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
>>
>> A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT"
>> trademark is owned by SPI:
>> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:r3y94m.2.1
>>
>> If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal
>> issue. In other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE",
>> there is no legal issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.
>>
>> SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark
>> that appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a
>> purely hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do
>> not merge and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to
>> FreeWRT or alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the
>> "FreeWRT" trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to
>> OpenWRT.
>>
>> My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce
>> this name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find
>> themselves equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like
>> in "LEAD the way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"?
>> While the core LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name
>> correctly, try explaining it to the world outside. For this reason,
>> "OpenWRT" is a better choice imho.
>>
>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change
>> may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the
>> project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity
>> of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device)
>> or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the merge of
>> OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and
>> SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.
>>
>> By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
>> registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
>> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:8zgvq2.8.1
>>
>> - Val
>>
>> ___
>> Lede-dev mailing list
>> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
> 
> 
> 

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 06:18, Val Kulkov wrote:
> On 22 December 2016 at 00:13, Russell Senior  
> wrote:
>>> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli  writes:
>>
 However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
 change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
 the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the
 popularity of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for
 Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the
 merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT
 folks and SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT
 or alike.
>>
>> Florian> The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by
>> Florian> SPI, so we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I
>> Florian> meant to say here, nothing more.  -- Florian
>>
>> Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going to be
>> needed, but I can't help but think of this:
>>
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
>>
>>
>> PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Russell Senior, President
>> russ...@personaltelco.net
> 
> Now, please try to explain how to pronounce OpenLEDE and make sure the
> correct pronunciation sticks :-)

the people in old europe tend to say Open and then spell W R T while the
people in america tend to call it openwrite and i have heard many more
pronunciations over the years, specially in asia. its an inherent
problem when using abbreviations in an international environment.

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Russell Senior]

> "Val" == Val Kulkov  writes:

>> Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going
>> to be needed, but I can't help but think of this:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
>> 
>> 
>> PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)

Val> Now, please try to explain how to pronounce OpenLEDE and make sure
Val> the correct pronunciation sticks :-)

It doesn't matter how they pronounce it, as long as they can find the
IRC channel ;-)


-- 
Russell Senior, President
russ...@personaltelco.net

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Val Kulkov]

On 22 December 2016 at 00:13, Russell Senior  wrote:
>> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli  writes:
>
>>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
>>> change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
>>> the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the
>>> popularity of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for
>>> Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the
>>> merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT
>>> folks and SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT
>>> or alike.
>
> Florian> The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by
> Florian> SPI, so we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I
> Florian> meant to say here, nothing more.  -- Florian
>
> Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going to be
> needed, but I can't help but think of this:
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
>
>
> PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)
>
>
> --
> Russell Senior, President
> russ...@personaltelco.net

Now, please try to explain how to pronounce OpenLEDE and make sure the
correct pronunciation sticks :-)

- Val

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Russell Senior]

> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli  writes:

>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
>> change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
>> the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the
>> popularity of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for
>> Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the
>> merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT
>> folks and SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT
>> or alike.

Florian> The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by
Florian> SPI, so we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I
Florian> meant to say here, nothing more.  -- Florian

Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going to be
needed, but I can't help but think of this:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality


PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)


-- 
Russell Senior, President
russ...@personaltelco.net

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Huan Truong]

> OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason.

I seem to agree with this -- As a user, I have been using
Tomato and DD-WRT until very recently, exactly because I tried OpenWRT
back in 10.03 and LuCi was quite painful to use.

If it was not for CeroWRT that opened my eyes and made me realize that
OpenWRT is not the clunky 10.03 I used to know anymore, I wouldn't
have touched OpenWRT/LEDE again.

On the other hand, LEDE somehow doesn't click as much as ???-WRT. I
remember OpenWRT, I remember CeroWRT, and I would probably have
remembered LibreWRT if it ever existed, but I wouldn't remember LEDE
as "the good firmware for my router" for some weird reasons.

Either way, I hope this merger pass. I love both projects and hope
that I won't have to tell people what they should use anymore
(honestly I don't even know the answer to this problem).

Btw - I wouldn't exactly think that DD-WRT was stable, it was the most
confusing product to me when it comes to "what version is stable and
has new features that I want?" Hunting for a version of DD-WRT that
works is like hunting for a ROM that works on XDA.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Florian Fainelli  wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
 On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:

> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
> to the development moving forward.


 I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
 name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>>
>>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some
>> downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet)
>> were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of
>> OpenWRT project.
>>
>> I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
>> significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
>>
>> But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
>> brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
>
> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
> --
> Florian
>
> ___
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev



-- 
- h.
this account is for various registrations purposes only, this might
disappear in the future. please talk to me to know my real email
address

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Dave Taht]

Lede trademark...

Published for Opposition:December 20, 2016

sigh.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Val Kulkov  wrote:
> On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli  wrote:
>> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>
>> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
>> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
>> to the development moving forward.
>
>
> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.

 Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
 re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
 organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
 sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
 and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
 Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
 preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
 sense.

>>>
>>> +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some
>>> downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet)
>>> were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of
>>> OpenWRT project.
>>>
>>> I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
>>> significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
>>>
>>> But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
>>> brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
>>
>> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
>> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
>> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
>> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
>> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
>
> A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT"
> trademark is owned by SPI:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:r3y94m.2.1
>
> If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal
> issue. In other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE",
> there is no legal issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.
>
> SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark
> that appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a
> purely hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do
> not merge and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to
> FreeWRT or alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the
> "FreeWRT" trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to
> OpenWRT.
>
> My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce
> this name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find
> themselves equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like
> in "LEAD the way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"?
> While the core LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name
> correctly, try explaining it to the world outside. For this reason,
> "OpenWRT" is a better choice imho.
>
> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change
> may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the
> project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity
> of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device)
> or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the merge of
> OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and
> SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.
>
> By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
> registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:8zgvq2.8.1
>
> - Val
>
> ___
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Val Kulkov]

On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli  wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
 On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:

> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
> to the development moving forward.


 I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
 name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>>
>>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some
>> downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet)
>> were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of
>> OpenWRT project.
>>
>> I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
>> significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
>>
>> But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
>> brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
>
> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.

A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT"
trademark is owned by SPI:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:r3y94m.2.1

If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal
issue. In other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE",
there is no legal issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.

SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark
that appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a
purely hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do
not merge and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to
FreeWRT or alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the
"FreeWRT" trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to
OpenWRT.

My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce
this name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find
themselves equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like
in "LEAD the way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"?
While the core LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name
correctly, try explaining it to the world outside. For this reason,
"OpenWRT" is a better choice imho.

However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change
may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the
project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity
of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device)
or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the merge of
OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and
SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.

By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:8zgvq2.8.1

- Val

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/21/2016 07:30 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> 
> On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli  > wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  > wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
> >>>
>  From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term
> OpenWrt as
>  part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>  cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>  positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand
> attached
>  to the development moving forward.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has
> a lot of
> >>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
> >>
> >> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
> >> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
> >> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding
> edge,
> >> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
> >> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
> >> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals,
> coherently,
> >> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has
> some
> > downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the
> internet)
> > were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the
> weaknesses of
> > OpenWRT project.
> >
> > I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
> > significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT
> project.
> >
> > But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
> > brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
> 
> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
> 
> 
> A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT"
> trademark is owned by SPI:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:r3y94m.2.1
> 
> If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal issue.
> In other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE", there is no
> legal issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.
> 
> SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark that
> appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a purely
> hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do not merge
> and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to FreeWRT or
> alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the "FreeWRT"
> trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to OpenWRT.
> 
> My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce this
> name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find
> themselves equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like in
> "LEAD the way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"? While
> the core LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name correctly,
> try explaining it to the world outside. For this reason, "OpenWRT" is a
> better choice imho.
> 
> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change
> may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the project,
> a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity of
> "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device) or
> "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the merge of OpenWRT
> and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and SPI may
> have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.
> 
> By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
> registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:8zgvq2.8.1

The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by SPI, so
we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I meant to say here,
nothing more.
-- 
Florian

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>>
 From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
 part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
 cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
 positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
 to the development moving forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>
>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>> sense.
>>
> 
> +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some 
> downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet) 
> were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of 
> OpenWRT project.
> 
> I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is 
> significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
> 
> But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better 
> brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.

Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
-- 
Florian

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Alberto Bursi]

On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>
>>> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
>>> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>>> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>>> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
>>> to the development moving forward.
>>
>>
>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>
> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
> sense.
>

+1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some 
downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet) 
were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of 
OpenWRT project.

I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is 
significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.

But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better 
brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.

-Alberto
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Dave Taht]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>
>> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
>> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
>> to the development moving forward.
>
>
> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.

Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
sense.

> David Lang
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-de...@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:


From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
to the development moving forward.


I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of name 
recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.


David Lang

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hi all,

To clarify, the reason for integrating the OpenWrt patches into the LEDE 
tree is that in the future, at an agreed point in time for both parties, 
the OpenWrt trunk would be rebased from the LEDE tree, giving the 
community a "clean" trunk going forward.


(Hopefully at that time, the "two parties" will be one.)

Thanks Hauke for managing these talks and meetings.

Regards,
Zoltan H

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:


We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
developers were invited to these meetings. We had productive and
friendly discussions about the problems and our goals.

To be more open and to involve the wider community in these discussions
we would like to publish the meeting minutes from the meetings.

The first in person meeting took place in Berlin at the OpenWrt Summit
on 13. October 2016, but no one took any minutes so we do not have
anything to publish.
The second meeting was an audio conference on 5. November 2016 and
Florian took minutes which are attached to this mail.
At the third audio conference meeting on 3. December 2016 Jow took
minutes which are also attached to this mail.
The last meeting took place on 19. December 2016.
These minutes are representing the current state of the discussions and
are not PR polished.

We agreed on giving Imre, Zoltan and Luka commit access to the LEDE
repository so they can migrate changes they care about and which are not
in LEDE, from the OpenWrt repository to the LEDE repository. We also
encouraging everyone who sent a patch, which got merged into OpenWrt and
which is not in LEDE to send it also to LEDE for integration.

It is still not decided that both project will finally merge and we
haven't decided on the name to use, which parts of the infrastructure
and many other things. In general we are agreeing on many parts and I am
looking forward to a good merged ending for all of us.



___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Fernando Frediani]

Great achievement. Congratulations to all involved.

On the naming topic have in mind the weight OpenWRT has given its
history in all these years. I personally think this point is the
easiest.

Given the agreements continue hopefully there will be a single one
great project again soon with all benefits LEDE has brought in terms
of flexibility, agility and transparency to all contributors.

Thanks

On 21 December 2016 at 16:06, Hauke Mehrtens  wrote:
> We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
> between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
> merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
> developers were invited to these meetings. We had productive and
> friendly discussions about the problems and our goals.
>
> To be more open and to involve the wider community in these discussions
> we would like to publish the meeting minutes from the meetings.
>
> The first in person meeting took place in Berlin at the OpenWrt Summit
> on 13. October 2016, but no one took any minutes so we do not have
> anything to publish.
> The second meeting was an audio conference on 5. November 2016 and
> Florian took minutes which are attached to this mail.
> At the third audio conference meeting on 3. December 2016 Jow took
> minutes which are also attached to this mail.
> The last meeting took place on 19. December 2016.
> These minutes are representing the current state of the discussions and
> are not PR polished.
>
> We agreed on giving Imre, Zoltan and Luka commit access to the LEDE
> repository so they can migrate changes they care about and which are not
> in LEDE, from the OpenWrt repository to the LEDE repository. We also
> encouraging everyone who sent a patch, which got merged into OpenWrt and
> which is not in LEDE to send it also to LEDE for integration.
>
> It is still not decided that both project will finally merge and we
> haven't decided on the name to use, which parts of the infrastructure
> and many other things. In general we are agreeing on many parts and I am
> looking forward to a good merged ending for all of us.
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-de...@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Hauke Mehrtens  wrote:
> We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
> between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
> merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
> developers were invited to these meetings. We had productive and
> friendly discussions about the problems and our goals.

Thanks for the update Hauke and those who took notes. A merger would
be a nice Christmas present, or at least something to look forward to
in the New Year! ;)

> It is still not decided that both project will finally merge and we
> haven't decided on the name to use, which parts of the infrastructure
> and many other things. In general we are agreeing on many parts and I am
> looking forward to a good merged ending for all of us.

>From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
to the development moving forward.

happy holidays all!
kg

___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev