Hey Daniel,
Daniel Golle wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
...
The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
OpenWrt team is:
----
Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to
let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all
Interesting, has anyone asked you to do this? LEDE keeps merging things
from OpenWrt's tree without any difficulties caused so far. There is
even a formal scheme on how to label commits imported from OpenWrt.
This was self-imposed until things are worked out, but cannot be kept
any further - trunk has got a fair amount of dust in the last few weeks.
contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections
but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later
this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.
What we would like is to:
- Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
targets,
By posting patches e.g. for the oxnas target which I maintain to the
mailing list and bother John to merge them?
Nobody from the current OpenWrt team blocked that you receive full
access to the tree, and since John has been reviewing most of your work
could have easily proposed that you get access to the tree.
How do you imagine this could work without a transparent procedure on
how people could gain or (be forced to) drop commit access?
Nothing about that is mentioned on
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules
(and that's apparently still a draft which hasn't ever been approved
One fair point for more transparency. While I have to argue that no one
within the team pushed to get the draft completed for years, we'll look
to get some guidance and finish it.
As You might be very well aware, for people to get commit access, an
internal vote was run, and the majority decision won (usually to allow
commit access).
by all existing project members, I never ever saw any of that
PGP-signed voting described in there on the mailing list happen in
all the years I'm following it)
- Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
confusing.
Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened,
everybody kept contributing to both projects.
Let me argue with that:
2016-06-07: 08:59 Changeset [49379] by nbd
treewide: fix replace nbd@… with nbd@… Signed-off-by: …
2016-05-30: 08:29 Changeset [49378] by rmilecki
mac80211: brcmfmac: return -ENFILE if interface exists This makes …
2016-05-12: 07:32 Changeset [49377] by rmilecki
bcm53xx: drop Copyright header from two of my bash scripts Both scripts …
LEDE members should be more clear about their future plans with OpenWrt
in light of this. As far as I'm aware (and that has been also told on
here), no commit access was revoked.
However, I reckon you
cannot expect people to just get back to work without priorly dealing
with or at least acknowlede the fact that very few people did most of
the work without a clear strategy on how to change that situation.
Moving to github might improve that, but still fails to address the
remaining issues (see http://www.lede-project.org/), such as the
intransparent communication and decission making behind closed doors.
Hang on. No one said anywhere things (or a large portion of them) won't
be fixed or changed. What'll be fixed in the short term is:
- Github move for easier contribution - as discussed. I more than agree
that patches were handled by a small amount of people compared to who is
listed on https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/people .
- Release cycle - 6 months, 9 months? This was also discussed in the
earlier threads that it's needed and will be done
- More open internal discussions and votings. (From my perspective, I do
believe that a private channel should be kept within the project, but
that should have low traffic and only the truly internal discussions
should be held there. Like where to get the beers for the next conference.)
As mentioned earlier, input from LEDE would be much appreciated. While
the team might not agree with all the changes already done in LEDE, the
appropriate ones should / will be brought in.
Technically that means openwrt-hack...@lists.openwrt.org should have
a publicly accessible archive (at least from now on), the private IRC
channels should also allow public read access and decissions made
should be backed by those publicly accessible communications.
That is something where the rest of the OpenWrt team will need to chime
in to discuss. I have some doubts about opening up a repository into the
public that was private for years, but let's discuss that.
We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches
will also be brought in where appropriate.
Great to hear this!
Regards,
The OpenWrt team
Just for the record: Who is that exactly?
Mike, Luka, Zoltan, Florian, Roman, Gabor, Matteo, at this point
(Considered to be on the team, but didn't answer the req-for-sign or
AWOL: Imre, Mirko)
Thanks,
Zoltan H
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
