On Mon, 29 May 2017 09:03:57 +0200
John Crispin wrote:
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> Hi,
>
> here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the
> comments people made into it, if anything is missing let me know.
> Please remeber that post remerge anything can be voted on, s
The current workflow for handling patches involves
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/lede/.
Is that something that shouldn't be addressed also in the merging process ?
Paul
> Op 29 mei 2017, om 09:03 heeft John Crispin het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> H
On 2017-05-29 09:03, John Crispin wrote:
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> Hi,
>
> here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know. Please remeber
> that post remerge anything can be voted on, so cluttering t
On 05/29/2017 03:03 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> Hi,
>
> here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know. Please remeber
> that post remerge anything can be voted on, so clutterin
*) rules
- owrt will adopt the lede rules and voting system
ACK from me aswell.
*) branding
- the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
- a (minor) majority voted for openwrt as a name over lede whilst most
people said they did not care
- as the last vote had a 100% ACK for a
On 05/29/2017 09:03 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> Hi,
>
> here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know. Please remeber
> that post remerge anything can be voted on, so cluttering
Hey everyone,
Thanks to John for compiling the proposal.
Also full ack from my side for the content and remerge.
Cheers,
Steven
On 2017-05-29 09:03, John Crispin wrote:
(resend, this time as plain text)
Hi,
here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
people made
On 05/29/2017 09:03 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> Hi,
>
> here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know. Please remeber
> that post remerge anything can be voted on, so cluttering
2017-05-29 9:03 GMT+02:00 John Crispin :
> (resend, this time as plain text)
>
> Hi,
>
> here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know. Please remeber that
> post remerge anything can be voted on, so cluttering the p
(resend, this time as plain text)
Hi,
here is a V3 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
people made into it, if anything is missing let me know. Please remeber
that post remerge anything can be voted on, so cluttering the proposal
with many details will delay the remerge
On 23/05/17 22:42, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
On 05/22/2017 09:40 AM, John Crispin wrote:
Hi,
here is a V2 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
people made into it, if anything is missing let me know.
John
.
*) SPI
- nominate a new liaison team (imre and john
On 05/22/2017 09:40 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is a V2 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know.
>
>
> John
.
> *) SPI
> - nominate a new liaison team (imre and john offer to do this, if anyone
>
John Crispin writes:
> the lede rules that will become the new owrt rules.
You may want to mention this fact in the merge proposal itself. What
would happen to the rules was one of the points that was unclear in the
first round, I believe... :)
-Toke
___
Hi,
here is a V2 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
people made into it, if anything is missing let me know.
John
*) branding
- the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
- a (minor) majority voted for openwrt as a name over lede whilst most
people s
On 05/15/2017 10:16 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> On May 12, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
>>
>> I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people
>> actually running the project, this makes sense.
>> But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself b
> On May 12, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
>
> I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people
> actually running the project, this makes sense.
> But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself busy, but also to
> target a larger audience, it make
On 05/15/2017 09:11 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> On May 11, 2017, at 10:09 PM, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
>>
>> People don't like rules and that could be even more true with open
>> source work groups. However, a good set of _limited_ rules can make life
>> easier. You may focus on important work or
> On May 11, 2017, at 10:09 PM, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
>
> People don't like rules and that could be even more true with open
> source work groups. However, a good set of _limited_ rules can make life
> easier. You may focus on important work or joyful recreation while not
> worrying about acci
On Sun, 14 May 2017, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
*) branding
- the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
- a (minor) majority voted for openwrt as a name over lede whilst most
people said they did not care
- as the last vote had a 100% ACK for a remerge using the owrt brand is
the
on
> *) branding
> - the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
>
> - a (minor) majority voted for openwrt as a name over lede whilst most
> people said they did not care
>
> - as the last vote had a 100% ACK for a remerge using the owrt brand is
the
> only feasible option
Passionate: I s
On 05/12/2017 12:48 PM, Stefan Peter wrote:
> On 12.05.2017 20:39, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 05/12/2017 10:51 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>>> IMO the question should be "should the merged project be called OpenWRT or
>>> not".
>>
>> This is absolutel
On 05/12/2017 03:51 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 18:37, David Lang wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>
>>> The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
>>> name of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider
>>> community
On 12 May 2017 at 18:37, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>
>> The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
>> name of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider
>> community an opportunity to be heard, and whether they wou
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the name
of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider community
an opportunity to be heard, and whether they would listen.
how do you define the 'wider community'?
On 12 May 2017 at 18:18, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> If the majority voted for the name OpenWRT what's the remaining issue then ?
>
> Fernando
>
22% voted for the name OpenWrt, to be exact. 5 votes out of 23. The
remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
name of the merge
The original post in this thread listed the remaining items to be
done/decided for a remerge.
David Lang
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Fernando Frediani wrote:
If the majority voted for the name OpenWRT what's the remaining issue then ?
Fernando
On 12 May 2017 23:40, "David Lang" wrote:
On Fri, 1
12.05.2017 23:45, Val Kulkov:
On 12 May 2017 at 17:40, David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right
question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted
on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?"
On 12 May 2017 at 17:40, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>
>> I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right
>> question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted
>> on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?" (see the link above)
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right
question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted
on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?" (see the link above)
IMHO the question should have been "Should the merged
Florian Fainelli schrieb am 12.05.2017 um 21:02:
> I don't think that mails sent to flor...@openwrt.org should be made into
> a mailing-list, but by the same token, I am making sure that this email
> is not used anywhere anymore such that if it has, it would be easy to
> make it happen and I would
On 05/12/2017 09:48 PM, Stefan Peter wrote:
>
> From the comments on this thread, I get the impression the quite some
> non-committing members of the community feel the same: The didn't even
> get asked about their opinion regarding the naming or the structure of
> the organisation that will res
On 12.05.2017 20:39, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 05/12/2017 10:51 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>> On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>> IMO the question should be "should the merged project be called OpenWRT or
>> not".
>
> This is absolutely not the question, this is only one of the questio
On 05/12/2017 07:02 AM, Paul Oranje wrote:
> Dear David, dear community,
> Please, see my comments below in-line.
> With the highest esteem,
> Paul
>
>> Op 12 mei 2017, om 02:04 heeft David Lang het volgende
>> geschreven:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote:
>>
Op 11 mei 2017, om
On 05/12/2017 10:02 AM, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
> chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
>
> My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE
> extensively over the pas
On 05/12/2017 10:51 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 12:02, Stefan Peter wrote:
>> On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>>> The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
>>> is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
>>> particul
+1
Tapper
On 12/05/2017 16:53, Stefan Peter wrote:
On 12.05.2017 10:02, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
Not having WRT in the name, implying it would be for wireless routers, but
instead using the broad term “development environment” was helping to better
describe what the platform is and give it a
On 12 May 2017 at 12:02, Stefan Peter wrote:
> On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>> The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
>> is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
>> particularly challenging for anyone outside to contribut
On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
> The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
> is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
> particularly challenging for anyone outside to contribute.
A solution to this problem could be to conduct
On 12.05.2017 10:02, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> Not having WRT in the name, implying it would be for wireless routers, but
> instead using the broad term “development environment” was helping to better
> describe what the platform is and give it a more professional sound.
> With the new name the p
On 12 May 2017 at 08:02, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people
> actually running the project, this makes sense.
> But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself busy, but also to
> target a larger audience, it makes sense to
Dear David, dear community,
Please, see my comments below in-line.
With the highest esteem,
Paul
> Op 12 mei 2017, om 02:04 heeft David Lang het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote:
>
>>> Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende
>>> geschreven:
>>>
I think Edwin highlights one of the main issues associated with both
OpenWRT and LEDE
The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
particularly challenging for anyone outside to contribute.
The vo
I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people actually
running the project, this makes sense.
But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself busy, but also to
target a larger audience, it makes sense to base some decisions on "market
research".
The name is ve
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that approach
That would be too bad.
It seems to me that the vote was held amongst a small group of heavily biased
people, of which a part was responsible for the split between OpenWRT and LEDE
in the first p
>> I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that approach
That would be too bad.
It seems to me that the vote was held amongst a small group of heavily biased
people, of which a part was responsible for the split between OpenWRT and LEDE
in the first place.
I am very sure if you would poll the lar
Hi,
>> OpenWRT better describes the wide range of specific system images
>> built for COTS products (which are mostly wireless routers) and is
>> a more suitable name for a final “product". You should consider
>> maintaining the LEDE name or somehow differentiatie between the
>> “development envir
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Daniel Golle wrote:
Hi Edwin,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:02:36AM +0200, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
My employer and several of my indu
Hi Edwin,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:02:36AM +0200, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
> chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
>
> My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Stijn Segers wrote:
David Lang wrote:
The (soon to be former) LEDE developers don't want @openwrt.org addresses,
so
providing a way to not break the existing addresses and not giving out new
ones
doesn't seem like it is upsetting to any of the developers.
Let's not get
Davig Lang wrote:
The (soon to be former) LEDE developers don't want @openwrt.org
addresses, so
providing a way to not break the existing addresses and not giving out
new ones
doesn't seem like it is upsetting to any of the developers.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The thread title state
As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE
extensively over the past few years in many projects, ranging from routers and
acc
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
For example, rule (7) says all votes and decisions will be public but it
lacks a formal expression that some decisions (intermediate term) need
confidentiality. How do you handle bidding for services or inquiries by
sponsors? "Time Limited Confidentialit
(I am an outsider)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 04:09:31 +
>> From: Eric Luehrsen
>> Cc: LEDE Development List
>> Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal
>>
>> I r
would have to comply with these rules?
or are they outsiders (I am an outsider)
David Lang
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 04:09:31 +
From: Eric Luehrsen
Cc: LEDE Development List
Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal
I read this on
I read this on going thread and ... (sigh).
"Good fences make good neighbors." Robert Frost
People don't like rules and that could be even more true with open
source work groups. However, a good set of _limited_ rules can make life
easier. You may focus on important work or joyful recreation wh
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote:
Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende
geschreven:
On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017, om 11:31 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende
geschreven:
On 2017-05-10 00:52, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
[cut]
*) SPI
- TBD post r
Taking part in this discussion feels a bit awkward - without question I have
less at stake than you and most other involved devs - but since I did speak-up
...
--
Paul
> Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
> On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje
> On May 11, 2017, at 4:53 AM, Stijn Segers
> wrote:
>
> Some of the OpenWrt veterans come across as if they want the re-merge to be
> rushed, ignoring the actual issues that caused the fork in the first place.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. You don’t get married, then define your vows
a
Hi Paul,
On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote:
Although being someone that’s merely following the developments of this
project, I want to comment on what’s going on in this thread.
Some of my remarks may strike as not very positive, so please do not take any
of those personal.
s.y.
Paul
O
Of course you only see you numbered your notes the wrong way *after* you
send your e-mail...
The second [3] and [4] should have been [5] and [6] (see inline).
Stijn Segers schreef op 2017-05-11 12:53:
Hey guys,
This might be a bit lengthy, but I should get this off my chest. I
feel people are
Hey guys,
This might be a bit lengthy, but I should get this off my chest. I feel
people are mostly looking at the upside and glossing over the negatives,
which is a time bomb, and both projects do not deserve this. Paul's
e-mail [0] already touches a lot of the relevant points, and it
motiva
[Some lists were dropped from this thread, adding again]
>
>>> According to the rules there shall be no personal mail accounts at all.
>>> There should be plenty of time until the actual remerge to fade them out
>>> and to set up forwarding elsewhere.
>>
>> I hope you agree that a merge means bo
On 05/11/2017 12:17 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Thanks for moving this forward.
>
> On 05/08/2017 03:19 PM, John Crispin wrote:
>> *) github
> .
>>
>> - obsolete the lede github org after a grace period of 3-6 months
>
> As long as it does not cost us effort I would like to keep the lede
> doma
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Alberto Bursi wrote:
On 05/11/2017 12:33 AM, Paul Oranje wrote:
Some of the rules has to change, and as we've discussed it with John, one might
want to send upstream submissions to make OpenWrt show up there like other
projects do. You might also want to open a private
On 05/11/2017 12:33 AM, Paul Oranje wrote:
>
>> Some of the rules has to change, and as we've discussed it with John, one
>> might want to send upstream submissions to make OpenWrt show up there like
>> other projects do. You might also want to open a private conversation
>> between the upstre
Although being someone that’s merely following the developments of this
project, I want to comment on what’s going on in this thread.
Some of my remarks may strike as not very positive, so please do not take any
of those personal.
s.y.
Paul
> Op 10 mei 2017, om 11:31 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgen
Thanks for moving this forward.
On 05/08/2017 03:19 PM, John Crispin wrote:
> *) github
.
>
> - obsolete the lede github org after a grace period of 3-6 months
As long as it does not cost us effort I would like to keep the lede
domains and github project up running for longer.
> *) landing
On 2017-05-09 18:29, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I’d like to suggest one more action item to this list if I can. It would be
handy to have a single database for user authentication/identification for
submitting bugs, editing the Wiki, etc.
Previously there were too many places where you had
On 2017-05-09 18:29, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I’d like to suggest one more action item to this list if I can. It
> would be handy to have a single database for user
> authentication/identification for submitting bugs, editing the Wiki, etc.
>
> Previously there were too many places where you ha
> On May 8, 2017, at 7:19 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Felix, Imre and myself had 2 calls last week lasting several hours and
> discussed the following proposal of conditions for a remerge that we would
> like to propose and have people vote on.
>
> *) branding
> - the owrt side sees
> On May 8, 2017, at 7:29 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 15:19 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
>>
>> *) mailing list
>> - ask david to add the openwrt-adm and openwrt lists
>> - announce the switch to the infradead serves, asking people to
>> unsubscribe if they have privacy i
I, too, look forward to putting energy where it matters.
However in reply to your point, how could it? When the first stable
release was made mere months ago.
The last patch that was submitted by QCA to add support for IPQ40XX, was
submitted to LEDE.
I simply hoped, that since there was a s
On Tue, 9 May 2017, A. Benz via Lede-dev wrote:
Likewise, OpenWRT while more recognizable than LEDE, is not worth as much as
people here paint it, and will only remain relevant as long as people keep
using it. Market/brand concept (in retail) doesn't really apply.
I'll point out that just las
The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
automatically by the mailing list software.--- Begin Message ---
Who among our resident young-timer
Glad to hear the merge is coming and that enough issues were resolved to
make this go forward. So ... I'll just throw my thoughts into the hopper.
> On 05/08/2017 09:19 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> *) branding
>
From a raw objective stand, OpenWrt has better market value as a brand.
Its longer
Hi,
On Mon, 8 May 2017, Daniel Engberg wrote:
Trac:
Is it really worth keeping trac at all? What value does it add? Just display
a page explaining that it's shutdown and forward to OpenWrt?
There is a lot of "added value" in the tickets submitted throughout the
years, either as comments, no
Hi,
Great seeing progress being made!
I read the proposal and think it's overall good but I think some things
should should have a slightly more direct approach.
Domain:
I might be misunderstanding here but why not reach out to gandi.net for
providing DNS servers instead of maintaining it by
I think it is a great news that openwrt/lede governance is merging back
together. I was really worried. There is not that many of you that can
run a complex project like that.
>From my side what matters is to be able to take the last release and
build it from source for my use. I found lede 17 rel
On 08/05/17 15:29, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 15:19 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
*) mailing list
- ask david to add the openwrt-adm and openwrt lists
- announce the switch to the infradead serves, asking people to
unsubscribe if they have privacy issues with this
- import the u
On 2017-05-08 15:43, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
John Crispin writes:
Hi,
Felix, Imre and myself had 2 calls last week lasting several hours and discussed
the following proposal of conditions for a remerge that we would like to propose
and have people vote on.
Great to hear progress is be
> Op 8 mei 2017, om 15:19 heeft John Crispin het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> Felix, Imre and myself had 2 calls last week lasting several hours and
> discussed the following proposal of conditions for a remerge that we would
> like to propose and have people vote on.
Is a recording or
2017-05-08 15:43 GMT+02:00 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen :
> John Crispin writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Felix, Imre and myself had 2 calls last week lasting several hours and
>> discussed
>> the following proposal of conditions for a remerge that we would like to
>> propose
>> and have people vote on.
>
> Gre
John Crispin writes:
> Hi,
>
> Felix, Imre and myself had 2 calls last week lasting several hours and
> discussed
> the following proposal of conditions for a remerge that we would like to
> propose
> and have people vote on.
Great to hear progress is being made on this! I think the proposal l
On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 15:19 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
>
> *) mailing list
> - ask david to add the openwrt-adm and openwrt lists
> - announce the switch to the infradead serves, asking people to
> unsubscribe if they have privacy issues with this
> - import the user DB from the current openwrt a
Hi,
Felix, Imre and myself had 2 calls last week lasting several hours and
discussed the following proposal of conditions for a remerge that we
would like to propose and have people vote on.
*) branding
- the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
- a (minor) majority voted for ope
85 matches
Mail list logo
