Qualcuno dal Battlemesh può commentarci questa bbomba? Da quel che ho capito: 8 degli sviluppatori principali di OpenWrt hanno deciso di fare un "fork" (cioè copiare lo stato attuale di un progetto ed usarlo come base di partenza per un altro progetto) di OpenWrt, chiamato LEDE "Linux Embedded Development Environment". Era davvero necessaria questa nuova frammentazione?
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Battlemesh] Introducing the LEDE project Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 20:55:23 +0200 From: John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> Reply-To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List <battlem...@ml.ninux.org> To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List <battlem...@ml.ninux.org>, cerowrt-de...@lists.bufferbloat.net, ninux-...@ml.ninux.org, guifi-...@llistes.guifi.net, gl...@luebeck.freifunk.net, qmp-...@mail.qmp.cat, wlanw...@freifunk.net The LEDE project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares many of the same goals. We are building an embedded Linux distribution that makes it easy for developers, system administrators or other Linux enthusiasts to build and customize software for embedded devices, especially wireless routers. The name 'LEDE' stands for 'Linux Embedded Development Environment'. Members of the project already include a significant share of the most active members of the OpenWrt community. We intend to bring new life to Embedded Linux development by creating a community with a strong focus on transparency, collaboration and decentralisation. LEDE’s stated goals are: - Building a great embedded Linux distribution with focus on stability and functionality. - Having regular, predictable release cycles coupled with community provided device testing feedback. - Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community participation and public meetings. We decided to create this new project because of long standing issues that we were unable to fix from within the OpenWrt project/community: 1. Number of active core developers at an all time low, no process for getting more new people involved. 2. Unreliable infrastructure, fixes prevented by internal disagreements and single points of failure. 3. Lack of communication, transparency and coordination in the OpenWrt project, both inside the core team and between the core team and the rest of the community. 4. Not enough people with commit access to handle the incoming flow of patches, too little attention to testing and regular builds. 5. Lack of focus on stability and documentation. To address these issues we set up the LEDE project in a different way compared to OpenWrt: 1. All our communication channels are public, some read-only to non-members to maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio. 2. Our decision making process is more open, with an approximate 50/50 mix of developers and power users with voting rights. 3. Our infrastructure is simplified a lot, to ensure that it creates less maintenance work for us. 4. We have made our merge policy more liberal, based on our experience with the OpenWrt package github feed. 5. We have a strong focus on automated testing combined with a simplified release process. We would like to thank the communities using the codebase and would welcome endorsements. If your community feels that the idea is good and will benefit all our communities as a whole then please post an endorsement on the lede-dev mailing list. Find out more on our project website http://lede-project.org/ Daniel Golle Felix Fietkau Hauke Mehrtens Jo-Philipp Wich John Crispin Matthias Schiffer Steven Barth _______________________________________________ Battlemesh mailing list battlem...@ml.ninux.org http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@ml.ninux.org http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless