here we are again: real name 'discussion'

[Paul D]

We have quorum/consensus on this issue. Is it too much to ask that 
everyone now follow it, or at least have this token 'vote'?



Triggered by the yggdrasil additions of recent.

https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23072



Paul S amended the policy (in packages[1] and openwrt[2] repos) with an 
open discussion in PRs for Felix to then change direction via:


https://github.com/openwrt/actions-shared-workflows/commit/12d9551f2d07ec34ac813da8612c8014fb393af6


with comment: "should require a public discussion/vote"



[1] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23084
[2] https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/14380

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [PATCH] scripts: create kernel configuration upgrade script

[Gio]

Sorry to hijack into this thread but about having a more friendly way to 
configure the kernel consistently across versions I wrote this little 
utility which I sue to configure both Linux Kernel and OpenWrt 
programmatically in a way which make it very very easy to upgrade versions


https://gitlab.com/g10h4ck/kconfig-utils

I have researched quite a bit into this topic because I need to deal 
with kconfig based stuff in many places, and finally implemented this 
which is quite sustainable even for one single person


A side note is that it seems quite dumb and frustrating to me that 
KConfig doesn't support a way to configure the things programmatically 
by it self, when it already support a way to do that from an interactive 
menu which is probably much more cumbersome to expose a CLI to just 
set/unset what is needed and report an error if something goes wrong... 
(well the tool i have implemented does just that)


Cheers

Gio


On 2024-03-24 20:00, Elliott Mitchell wrote:

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 07:56:01PM +0100, Stijn Segers wrote:

Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 15:24:50 -08:00:00 schreef Elliott Mitchell
:

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:16:41 -0800

Create a script for automating kernel version changes.  This
generates a pair of commits which cause history to remain attached to
all versioned configuration files.

Crucially this makes `git blame` work without needing
--find-copies-harder, which is too slow for routine use.  This also
updates *everything*, which greatly simplifies rebasing patches
which effect multiple devices.

Credit to Christian Marangi who knew of the technique:


Signed-off-by: Elliott Mitchell 


Is there a way to bump a specific target to a new kernel with your
script? It doesn't look like it, but I might be mistaken. Would it be a
lot of work to integrate that? With the shell equivalent being merged,
I can understand any reluctance to adding this functionality, but it's
worth asking.

As originally written, no.  I see significant advantages to that approach
and it really is starting to look like the best balance.

To add the ability to handle a single target, near trivial.  To add the
ability to do multiple target(s), very simple.  To do this efficiently,
still fairly simple.

It does seem this list has become useless for patch submission, so it has
been brought onto GitHub:

https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/14907




___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'

[John Crispin]

Hi,

the SoB is a DCO

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

without a real name DCO is not assignable

    John

On 26.03.24 14:39, Paul D wrote:
We have quorum/consensus on this issue. Is it too much to ask that 
everyone now follow it, or at least have this token 'vote'?



Triggered by the yggdrasil additions of recent.

https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23072



Paul S amended the policy (in packages[1] and openwrt[2] repos) with 
an open discussion in PRs for Felix to then change direction via:


https://github.com/openwrt/actions-shared-workflows/commit/12d9551f2d07ec34ac813da8612c8014fb393af6 




with comment: "should require a public discussion/vote"



[1] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23084
[2] https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/14380

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel


___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'

[Petr Štetiar]

John Crispin  [2024-03-26 21:10:03]:

Hi,

tl;dr check following kernel commit d4563201f33a ("Documentation: simplify and
clarify DCO contribution example language"), the diff:

  -using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
  +using a known identity (sorry, no anonymous contributions.)

> without a real name DCO is not assignable

There is official clarification[1] from Linux Foundation of the intended
meaning, to make it clear that real names are NOT required, only ability to
identify the person in the community:

 The DCO requires the use of a real name that can be used to identify someone
 in case there is an issue about a contribution they made. A real name does not
 require a legal name, nor a birth name, nor any name that appears on an
 official ID (e.g. a passport). 

 Your real name is the name you convey to people in the community for them to
 use to identify you as you. The key concern is that your identification is
 sufficient enough to contact you if an issue were to arise in the future about
 your contribution. Your real name should not be an anonymous id or false name
 that misrepresents who you are.

1. https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/383#issuecomment-1178254458

Cheers,

Petr

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'

[Felix Fietkau]

On 26.03.24 14:39, Paul D wrote:

We have quorum/consensus on this issue. Is it too much to ask that
everyone now follow it, or at least have this token 'vote'?


Where did you see the quorum/consensus? I looked at the links and 
couldn't find it.



Triggered by the yggdrasil additions of recent.

https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23072



Paul S amended the policy (in packages[1] and openwrt[2] repos) with an
open discussion in PRs for Felix to then change direction via:

https://github.com/openwrt/actions-shared-workflows/commit/12d9551f2d07ec34ac813da8612c8014fb393af6


with comment: "should require a public discussion/vote"


I reverted the change because:

a) It's a policy change and not a code change.
Policy changes require a vote.

b) Just because the kernel changed their interpretation of DCO 
requirements doesn't mean this automatically applies to OpenWrt 
contribution policy.


c) It's completely unclear what the new intended requirements are.
So far it has been our policy that contributions need to be signed off 
with the real name of the submitter.
If we want to change this in order to allow contributions without a real 
name attached, we need to clarify what's acceptable and what isn't.
The Kernel's "clarification" regarding this topic is *very* vague in my 
opinion. What does "known identity" even mean? Known to whom, and to 
what degree?
If somebody contributes with his GitHub handle, does that already count 
as known?


- Felix

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel