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

> "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".

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

On 12/21/2016 6:01 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: So maybe it's a good idea to use the (still hypothetical, but hopefully close) merge to advertise a rename which will both aim to carry-over the brand recognition at the same time as it sends the message that it's something "new and better" (i.e. keep

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

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

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

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: > >>> >

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

> 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 don't have a clear opinion either way, but I think there are several points to take into account: - OpenWRT indeed has a fair bit of positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

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