Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Mathias Kresin]

22.10.2017 22:56, Hauke Mehrtens:

On 10/22/2017 10:28 PM, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:

Hi,

Zoltan HERPAI wrote:

Hi Hauke,

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:


I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
repository into the LEDE repository.

Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv

I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
place where this causes problems.

I used this script to generate the csv table:
https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py

The bigger topics I see are:
* addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
* Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
   can try to port this and test it?
* There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
  the authors.
* The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
  kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
  the realview target?


As discussed earlier, I've prepared manually a list of commits that
are missing from LEDE. I was about to send:

  - a set of patches that probably don't need any discussion and can be
merged right away,
  - a set of patches that are RFC, and should be discussed.

Let me know if that should still happen.

The series has been sent as discussed on irc. I don't recall any more
required - also based on checking the CSV, thanks for prepping that.

The RFC patches/PRs are:




...


- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/312
ar71xx: add support for Zsun WiFi SD Card Reader


This is missing a Singed-of-by line


A few days ago a similar PR was created (and unfortunately already 
closed): https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/1422.


The OpenWrt PR has a lot of issues, like enabling unencrypted wireless 
for the whole target.





https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/4f997727aef0603f02e9320ba787ea1b894747c0

lantiq: td-w8980: fix failsafe mode via ethernet.


This looks correct to me, but I do not have this board.


This one isn't required. The wrong interface in failsafe was fixed for 
the whole target with f080cfab72d8801856fa01f0476f1fc9b920a9d9.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Marek Vasut]

On 10/22/2017 08:46 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
> repository into the LEDE repository.
> 
> Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
> and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv
> 
> I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
> the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
> place where this causes problems.
> 
> I used this script to generate the csv table:
> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py
> 
> The bigger topics I see are:
> * addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
>  * Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
>can try to port this and test it?

The SoCFPGA support should be pretty decent in 4.9 . To my knowledge,
there are no openwrt socfpga users, they all switched to OE.

> * There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
>   the authors.
> * The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
>   kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
>   the realview target?
> 
> Hauke
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Hauke Mehrtens]

On 10/22/2017 10:28 PM, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
>> Hi Hauke,
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>>
>>> I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
>>> repository into the LEDE repository.
>>>
>>> Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
>>> and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
>>> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv
>>>
>>> I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
>>> the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
>>> place where this causes problems.
>>>
>>> I used this script to generate the csv table:
>>> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py
>>>
>>> The bigger topics I see are:
>>> * addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
>>> * Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
>>>   can try to port this and test it?
>>> * There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
>>>  the authors.
>>> * The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
>>>  kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
>>>  the realview target?
>>
>> As discussed earlier, I've prepared manually a list of commits that
>> are missing from LEDE. I was about to send:
>>
>>  - a set of patches that probably don't need any discussion and can be
>> merged right away,
>>  - a set of patches that are RFC, and should be discussed.
>>
>> Let me know if that should still happen.
> The series has been sent as discussed on irc. I don't recall any more
> required - also based on checking the CSV, thanks for prepping that.
> 
> The RFC patches/PRs are:
> 
> 
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/433
> I'd like to add genimage support to OpenWrt. With this package one can
> create arbitrary image either for internal flash or SD/USB storage devices.
> As this package is basically applicable to any target should I enable it
> in tools/Makefile tools-y target?
> 
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/409
> Add nconfig toplevel target to utilize ncurses ui configuration utility
> as found on kernel's buildsystem.

There is also a pull open request for LEDE:
https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/903

> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/533
> tools: add package autoconf-archive

There is also a open pull request for LEDE:
https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/1368

> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/464
> Add full control of network configuration to a user script #464
> 
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/312
> ar71xx: add support for Zsun WiFi SD Card Reader

This is missing a Singed-of-by line

> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/4f997727aef0603f02e9320ba787ea1b894747c0
> 
> lantiq: td-w8980: fix failsafe mode via ethernet.

This looks correct to me, but I do not have this board.

> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/9fb1348a0aa8954535ec5a2c088037af0d7b9297
> 
> packages: lzo: Update LZO Makefile to repair dead Main URL

For me also the old URL works, this was probably only temporary, we
should add both URLs to the build system.

> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/539
> Add TL-WA901v5 support

The GCC 7 patches are probably already in, but the target commit looks
ok to me, but I am not a ar71xx expert.


> 
> 
> - #1-4 would require discussion if they're needed at all, they look as
> "nice to have".
> - #5 needs some work as it has some dirty hacks. This can be taken care
> on the summit's second day - I recall someone going there has a ZSun reader
> - #6 - I haven't seen traces of this in LEDE, but I leave it to the
> lantiq experts to opinion on
> - #7 was due to an outage if I recall correctly, again, it's optional
> - #8 - needs some further changes around creating the -factory image
> 
> Regards,
> -w-
What about the SoCFPGA target?
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/tree/master/target/linux/socfpga

I think they should submit it again with kernel 4.9 support.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Hans Dedecker]

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Zoltan HERPAI  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hauke,
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>>
>>> I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
>>> repository into the LEDE repository.
>>>
>>> Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
>>> and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
>>> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv
>>>
>>> I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
>>> the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
>>> place where this causes problems.
>>>
>>> I used this script to generate the csv table:
>>> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py
>>>
>>> The bigger topics I see are:
>>> * addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
>>> * Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
>>>   can try to port this and test it?
>>> * There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
>>>  the authors.
>>> * The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
>>>  kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
>>>  the realview target?
>>
>>
>> As discussed earlier, I've prepared manually a list of commits that are
>> missing from LEDE. I was about to send:
>>
>>  - a set of patches that probably don't need any discussion and can be
>> merged right away,
>>  - a set of patches that are RFC, and should be discussed.
>>
>> Let me know if that should still happen.
>
> The series has been sent as discussed on irc. I don't recall any more
> required - also based on checking the CSV, thanks for prepping that.
>
> The RFC patches/PRs are:
>
> 
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/433
> I'd like to add genimage support to OpenWrt. With this package one can
> create arbitrary image either for internal flash or SD/USB storage devices.
> As this package is basically applicable to any target should I enable it in
> tools/Makefile tools-y target?
>
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/409
> Add nconfig toplevel target to utilize ncurses ui configuration utility as
> found on kernel's buildsystem.
>
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/533
> tools: add package autoconf-archive
>
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/464
> Add full control of network configuration to a user script #464
>
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/312
> ar71xx: add support for Zsun WiFi SD Card Reader
>
> -
> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/4f997727aef0603f02e9320ba787ea1b894747c0
> lantiq: td-w8980: fix failsafe mode via ethernet.
>
> -
> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/9fb1348a0aa8954535ec5a2c088037af0d7b9297
> packages: lzo: Update LZO Makefile to repair dead Main URL
>
> - https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/539
> Add TL-WA901v5 support

Following PR is also nice to have :
-https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/463
Stop pollution of dns and domain variables in dhcp.script

Hans

> 
>
> - #1-4 would require discussion if they're needed at all, they look as "nice
> to have".
> - #5 needs some work as it has some dirty hacks. This can be taken care on
> the summit's second day - I recall someone going there has a ZSun reader
> - #6 - I haven't seen traces of this in LEDE, but I leave it to the lantiq
> experts to opinion on
> - #7 was due to an outage if I recall correctly, again, it's optional
> - #8 - needs some further changes around creating the -factory image
>
> Regards,
>
> -w-
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hi,

Zoltan HERPAI wrote:

Hi Hauke,

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:


I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
repository into the LEDE repository.

Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv

I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
place where this causes problems.

I used this script to generate the csv table:
https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py

The bigger topics I see are:
* addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
* Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
  can try to port this and test it?
* There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
 the authors.
* The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
 kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
 the realview target?


As discussed earlier, I've prepared manually a list of commits that 
are missing from LEDE. I was about to send:


 - a set of patches that probably don't need any discussion and can be 
merged right away,

 - a set of patches that are RFC, and should be discussed.

Let me know if that should still happen.
The series has been sent as discussed on irc. I don't recall any more 
required - also based on checking the CSV, thanks for prepping that.


The RFC patches/PRs are:


- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/433
I'd like to add genimage support to OpenWrt. With this package one can 
create arbitrary image either for internal flash or SD/USB storage devices.
As this package is basically applicable to any target should I enable it 
in tools/Makefile tools-y target?


- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/409
Add nconfig toplevel target to utilize ncurses ui configuration utility 
as found on kernel's buildsystem.


- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/533
tools: add package autoconf-archive

- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/464
Add full control of network configuration to a user script #464

- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/312
ar71xx: add support for Zsun WiFi SD Card Reader

- 
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/4f997727aef0603f02e9320ba787ea1b894747c0

lantiq: td-w8980: fix failsafe mode via ethernet.

- 
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/9fb1348a0aa8954535ec5a2c088037af0d7b9297

packages: lzo: Update LZO Makefile to repair dead Main URL

- https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/539
Add TL-WA901v5 support


- #1-4 would require discussion if they're needed at all, they look as 
"nice to have".
- #5 needs some work as it has some dirty hacks. This can be taken care 
on the summit's second day - I recall someone going there has a ZSun reader
- #6 - I haven't seen traces of this in LEDE, but I leave it to the 
lantiq experts to opinion on

- #7 was due to an outage if I recall correctly, again, it's optional
- #8 - needs some further changes around creating the -factory image

Regards,
-w-
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Florian Fainelli]

On 10/22/2017 11:46 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
> repository into the LEDE repository.
> 
> Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
> and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv
> 
> I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
> the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
> place where this causes problems.
> 
> I used this script to generate the csv table:
> https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py
> 
> The bigger topics I see are:
> * addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
>  * Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
>can try to port this and test it?
> * There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
>   the authors.
> * The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
>   kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
>   the realview target?

armvirt is now a superset of realview so this can be dropped.
-- 
Florian
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt -> LEDE git tree merge

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hi Hauke,

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:


I am working on merging the missing commits from the OpenWrt git
repository into the LEDE repository.

Here is a list of all non merge commits from the OpenWrt git repository
and their corresponding LEDE commit IDs:
https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/commits.csv

I only looked into the non merge commits and assumed that commits with
the same title are the same, if this is wrong please point me to some
place where this causes problems.

I used this script to generate the csv table:
https://github.com/hauke/openwrt-lede-merge/blob/master/openwrt-merge.py

The bigger topics I see are:
* addition of SoCFPGA target with kernel 4.4 support
* Will someone port this to kernel 4.9 or provide me with hardware so I
  can try to port this and test it?
* There are some commits without a Signed-off-by line, I will contact
 the authors.
* The realview target was removed from LEDE, but it got an update to
 kernel 4.4 in OpenWrt, how do we want to handle this? Does anyone need
 the realview target?


As discussed earlier, I've prepared manually a list of commits that are 
missing from LEDE. I was about to send:


 - a set of patches that probably don't need any discussion and can be 
merged right away,

 - a set of patches that are RFC, and should be discussed.

Let me know if that should still happen.

Thanks,
-w-
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] [LEDE-DEV] Project proposal: The GNUnet of autonomous Things

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2016-12-01 16:05, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi Sukru,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 08:52:57PM +, Sukru Senli wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>> 
>> Regarding (Phase 2 - ubus rpc proxy), I had opened a thread in October: 
>> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2016-October/042252.html
>> 
>> Currently we are working on a solution where multiple OpenWrt devices share 
>> a common ubus which allows us to control all devices from a single point.
>> 
>> Our initial development is based on websockets (we have replaced uhttpd with 
>> our websocket solution). ACL is still handled by rpcd.
>> 
>> Once we are done with the initial development, we are planning to share the 
>> code with the community so that anyone who is interested can try it out and 
>> provide feedback and/or contribute.
>> 
>> As the next step we were planning to investigate another approach where 
>> websockets are not used for proxying but instead a lower level ubus 
>> proxying, ubus monitor, and ubus ACLs (instead of rpcd) are used.
>> 
>> If you agree that we are trying to achieve the same goal here, maybe we 
>> should see how we can cooperate.
> 
> I was following your posts and do believe there is quite some overlap.
> It would thus be feasible to generalize the common parts (ubus call
> proxy, ubus service proxy, ubus remote monitor) by agreeing on a shared
> interface the actual implementations shall use. In that way, people
> can choose whether they want WebSockets, TR-069 or a suitable P2P
> framework depending on their specific needs.
> Has anything of your current approach at IOPSYS been made available
> publicly (eg. on github?)
> 
> From what I can tell there is also some overlap with Felix' proposed
> System Configuration Abstraction Layer, just that my envisioned use
> exceeds system configuration as it includes sensors, events and actors
> rather than just access to a configuration model.
If it makes sense, I'd be open to extending my abstraction layer to make
it suitable for your use case as well.
Feel free to propose changes to it if you like.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] [LEDE-DEV] rpcd-mod-nosql - prpl funding proposal

[Luka Perkov]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Luka Perkov wrote:
> can you define the session namespace and how this existing feature can
> be used?

The team has looked in into it and the session object from rpcd providing
get and set support looks like a good start, but I don't see it
fulfilling the use cases like we mentioned in the document, where data
is not associated with any user login or session.  For example, in the
proposal we mention system-level data storage like DSL statistics or
connected device histories.

The way I see with the session object would be to attach all such data
to the unauthenticated  session, but
this way there's no access control, so that's not convenient for more
sensitive data.

Also, we would like to put some additional control level such as, allow
to be a maximum of 100 entries in one "key" and flush out the oldest
entries one when new entries are pushed. That way the rpcd-mod-nosql
would handle part of the logic and we can avoid doing that in scripts or
daemons.

This is both a community and industry feature. For example in LuCI when
you login to the statistics page it starts showing data from that moment.
With this it can have back-end to pull the date from the database and
show graphs for the last X seconds right away.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] [LEDE-DEV] TR-069 for OpenWrt

[sniperpr]

qi_w...@people2000.net
tie_y...@people2000.net
Dirk Feytons 于2016年6月1日 周三04:49写道：

> On 30 May 2016 at 11:58, Delbar Jos  wrote:
>
>> Felix Fietkau  wrote:
>> > > We are conscious of the fact that together with the proposals made by
>> > > Felix, Luka and Wojtek we are now looking at many "competing"
>> proposals.
>> > > As a next step, we recommend to organize a workshop, at a practical
>> > > location and time, where we put everything on the table and define the
>> > > most appropriate path forward to the benefit of OpenWrt as a whole.
>> > I think such a workshop would be a great idea. It would be nice to have
>> the
>> > code available for review some time before that workshop, so we can all
>> take
>> > a detailed look at the various proposals before we sit down and decide
>> how
>> > to move forward with this.
>>
>> I agree that would be helpful. In our case it will take us some weeks
>> before we can formally release sources. We will be able to share
>> documentation on architecture, API, features, etc. up front to get the
>> discussions going.
>>
>
> At the Lua Workshop last year I presented how we're using Lua in our
> gateways. One of the items is how we implement the TR-069 datamodels in
> OpenWrt. The talk was recorded and is available at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVzEmewJG8I
>
>
> Dirk F.
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] [LEDE-DEV] TR-069 for OpenWrt

[Dirk Feytons]

On 30 May 2016 at 11:58, Delbar Jos  wrote:

> Felix Fietkau  wrote:
> > > We are conscious of the fact that together with the proposals made by
> > > Felix, Luka and Wojtek we are now looking at many "competing"
> proposals.
> > > As a next step, we recommend to organize a workshop, at a practical
> > > location and time, where we put everything on the table and define the
> > > most appropriate path forward to the benefit of OpenWrt as a whole.
> > I think such a workshop would be a great idea. It would be nice to have
> the
> > code available for review some time before that workshop, so we can all
> take
> > a detailed look at the various proposals before we sit down and decide
> how
> > to move forward with this.
>
> I agree that would be helpful. In our case it will take us some weeks
> before we can formally release sources. We will be able to share
> documentation on architecture, API, features, etc. up front to get the
> discussions going.
>

At the Lua Workshop last year I presented how we're using Lua in our
gateways. One of the items is how we implement the TR-069 datamodels in
OpenWrt. The talk was recorded and is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVzEmewJG8I


Dirk F.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] [LEDE-DEV] TR-069 for OpenWrt

[Eric Schultz]

I'm certainly supportive of bringing as many people involved as possible.
As Jos mentioned, there's likely some approval processes at many companies
that need to happen to release the source for public review.

Eric

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Delbar Jos 
wrote:

> Hauke Mehrtens  wrote:
> > On 05/27/2016 01:43 AM, Delbar Jos wrote:
> > > At Technicolor we have followed with great interest the recent
> proposals
> > to enhance OpenWrt with an open source solution for TR-069 remote
> > management. As one of the world's largest vendors of modems and routers
> > for carrier applications, making use of OpenWrt in a significant share
> of our
> > install base, we want to support this initiative in a meaningful way.
> > Concretely, we are willing to open source Technicolor's in-house TR-069
> > solution and thereby contribute to OpenWrt:
> > >  * a TR-069 protocol agent,
> > >  * a data model mapping framework that we use to bridge the world of
> > > OpenWrt, UCI, UBUS ... with the world of TR-069, TR-098, TR-181 ...
> > > (and by extension with the world of SNMP, MIB, NETCONF, YANG ...),
> > >  * a set of mappings.
> >
> > That is really nice to hear. For me personally it looks like the remote
> > management with TR-069 and similar protocols is one of the biggest
> > extensions commercial vendors add to the user space of OpenWrt to make it
> > fit their needs.
> >
> > In addition to the TR-* family does this also include support for SNMP,
> MIB,
> > NETCONF, YANG ?
>
> Our proposal does not include protocol agents for SNMP or NETCONF but it
> does include a data model mapping framework that can be used to bridge
> between these protocols' data models MIB and YANG and an OpenWrt
> environment. If you compare this framework with the slides shown by Felix
> at the prpl weekly then it's an implementation of the "configuration
> backend", or if you compare it with the architecture of a NETCONF project
> like https://wiki.openwrt.org/inbox/howto/opencpe then it's an
> implementation of "mand". (We aren't using mand.)
>
> > That's good to hear, would it also be possible that other interested
> people
> > can join such a workshop?
>
> The answer is yes as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Jos
> ___
> OpenWrt mailing list
> open...@lists.prplfoundation.org
> http://lists.prplfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt
>



-- 
Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation
http://www.prplfoundation.org
eschu...@prplfoundation.org
cell: 920-539-0404
skype: ericschultzwi
@EricPrpl
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Stefan Peter]

Dear Jo-Philipp Wich

On 26.05.2016 13:43, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I think the status quo has now been described several times and can be
> summarized as:

...

I'm just a lurker on this list but this is exactly the kind of email I
have missed in the past. I have no moral right to comment on the points
you have brought up, but bringing them up transparently on the public
mailing list for every developer/fanboy/contributor/lurker/.. to comment
on is what has been missing from the OpenWrt project up to now, IMHO.

I really hope that you will get lots and lots of replies to your
message. And, yes, these replies may point in every direction possible
and the will contradict each other and some will be out of tune (like
mine). But if you get the feeling of what the community at large thinks
about the issues you brought up, it was worth it. And I am sure that the
community will thank you for their opportunity to be heard by supporting
you even if the outcome of the issue in question was not in their favour.

And please, the next time you'd like to go to an OpenWrt/LEDE related
event and feel that you can not afford it, do speak up. I'm sure that
I'm not the only one being able to toss in a couple of bucks into the
hat for such a thing. Getting to know the other devs face to face,
having a beer (or two) and then, later, being able to attach a face (and
hopefully fond memories) to an email address has proven to be invaluable
for me in my job. Knowing people face to face can make the difference
between confrontation and compromise.

So, back to lurker mode for me.

With kind regards

Stefan Peter
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Jo-Philipp Wich]

Dear Kathy,

> I appreciate your well-written summary and the notable improvements.
> Moving to git and keeping history, improving the web site and
> documentation to enable more collaboration, making workflows more
> efficient and open, etc. had been discussed during face-to-face
> gatherings of OpenWrt core + industry, at ELCE events over the past
> couple years.

I would've considered myself "core" yet I've never attended ELCE (too
expensive for me) or any face to face meeting and I don't recall any
meeting contents being discussed en detail among the other core
developers which, in my opinion, underlines the nature of the internal
communication troubles plaguing OpenWrt.

The only thing I remember was Steven writing a short summary about the
topics discussed at the last OpenWrt summit.

I have no problem with not being able to attend conferences and I have
no problem with other developers maintaining industry relations, neither
do I object industry investment into OpenWrt but what I do mind is the
fact that, I, as "core developer", have to actively seek for the things
happening between OpenWrt and external entities and to find things
myself you apparently talked about with some developers in the past already.

> I got involved as a liaison from the perspective of the
> prpl Foundation with the core objective of improving OpenWrt, and
> setting up the workflow so that more of industry developers could both
> use and contribute to it.

Maybe I should've paid more attention to your past actions, maybe others
should've spoken upfront about their agreements with industry partners,
maybe I was just too careless - I don't know. In any case it seems that
LEDE was implementing things you've envisioned long ago which I regard
as a confirmation of our ideas.

> Bravo on fulfilling some of the topics that
> had only been talked about for some time -- that's a big help.

I do not know who was attending which meetings and which topics have
been talked about on whose behalf and what promises have been made there
but what I did notice was that little effort has been put into bringing
the project forward during the last five years at least.

With effort I do not mean things you can quantify in terms of lines of
code or commit count but the general work being done to shape the
project at all which includes, among other topics, the willingness to
get external help for infrastructural matters, to give up control, to
adopt new ideas and to accept work done by volunteers to e.g. rework the
home page, to interact with the community or to actually merge
contributions.

> I really hope you all can bring these enhancements together and go
> back to working on one project. From a marketing/communications
> standpoint, I'd suggest keeping the OpenWrt project name. It is highly
> recognized and probably only a slim fraction of "users" (people and
> companies who download and reflash their routers) will have heard of
> LEDE.

I still do hope that there might be a way to rejoin the projects and
time will tell if it is going to work out. That is, however, not my
decision to make but something all involved people should be comfortable
with.

> Regarding the unfinished business to "Start a proper discussion with
> OpenWrt...", I have my fingers crossed that you can resolve any
> remaining differences. Are there any LEDE objectives, rules,
> processes, or whatever that you think are still controversial?

I don't know, this is why we attempt to get a discussion started to
figure out if OpenWrt is willing to work under the new objectives and
what LEDE can do to make this happen.

> If so, reach out directly to whomever disagrees and start talking. Or go
> through Mike Baker to facilitate a dialog.

This is what we're trying to do - since Haukes previous attempt at
staging an IRC meeting failed I proposed to take matters to the list
since I regard an IRC chat to be an unsuitable medium for having such a
rather long running discussion. The time constraints and timezone
differences encourage preliminary, not well-thought responses which - in
my opinion - outweighs the benefit of having a real time conversation.

I do not want to go through specific persons using private communication
in order to facilitate a dialog and frankly, I don't see a reason why I
would need to.

As you might've noticed, we've been very careful to not point fingers at
anyone and when I raise certain concerns over previous mishaps I am
certainly not excluding myself.

> In summary, I like the enhancements made and the idea of hosting
> OpenWrt development on github and bringing everyone back together, but
> I don't like the idea of changing the well-established name of OpenWrt
> to LEDE.

I am very happy to hear that you endorse our ideas regarding the mode of
development. We agree that OpenWrt is a valuable trademark but a
trademark without a good product backing it becomes worthless eventually.


Thanks for understanding,
Jo-Philipp
__

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Fernando Frediani]

Wow. What a great email !!!

OpenWrt core people who have decided to stay with the project think
carefully about it.

In my humble vision reunite with LEDE new ideas and keeping the well
stabilished OpenWrt name is the ideal scenario.
Put aside the diferences and makd an effort for this to happen.

Fernando
On 26 May 2016 08:43, "Jo-Philipp Wich"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think the status quo has now been described several times and can be
> summarized as:
>
>  - Launching the new LEDE project/fork/reboot without discussing
>matters in advance with the developers not being involved was
>perceived in a hostile action damaging OpenWrt
>
>  - It has been claimed that any changes implemented by LEDE can be
>likewise implemented in OpenWrt as well, obviously not 100%
>identically without prior discussion but at least in a way keeping
>original intents and spirits
>
>  - Both sides expressed the wish to reunite on several occasions
>
> I very much apologize for the huge surprise the LEDE project has been
> to you and I do regret the fact that we didn't discuss it earlier with
> you guys. Some of us got caught in the belief that building a new,
> shiny sandpit according to our liking would be the better course of
> action compared to drastically changing OpenWrt for something not
> guaranteed to work in the long run.
>
> That being said I still think that LEDE already is a success, at least
> in my personal perception. When I mention "we" here I mean all the
> people having participated in LEDE, regardless of affiliation or agenda.
>
> Notable points are:
>
>  - We managed to figure out workflows supporting both mailing-list /
>patchwork-driven development and a more contributor oriented pull
>request model
>
>  - We figured out how to have a linear history without resorting to
>limiting ourselves to svn now (which was the sole argument for
>keeping it btw.)
>
>  - We reworked the buildbots to be more efficient
>
>  - We managed to quickly acquire donations, specifically regarding
>mirror space and build bot capacity
>
>  - We based the web page on a Git repo and mirrored that to Github
>in order to let people contribute
>
>  - We attempted to do everything publically [since the LEDE announcemnt]
>and retroactively published communication regarding the project
>implementation
>
>  - We have between three to four people per server having root access,
>with at least one person not being affiliated with "the cabal"
>
> On the other hand we didn't yet manage to:
>
>  - Clearly communicate our past and future intents upfront and after
>the fact
>
>  - Start a proper discussion with OpenWrt regarding the future direction
>of both projects
>
>  - Untangle the infrastructure (wiki.openwrt.org, dev.openwrt.org,
>git.openwrt.org)
>
>
> The weak effort on both sides in talking about both projects future
> direction paralyzed progress for all of us and in the associated
> communities so I'd very much like to reach at least some agreement or
> definitive decision soon.
>
> In order to underline my honest intention I'd like to give up
> maintenance of the OpenWrt wiki and hand the data / SSH access over to
> you guys so that you can migrate / maintain / rework it as you deem
> fitting.
>
> We're also still in possession of the secret build key for the CC
> release used to sign the package repositories. I'd be glad to throw it
> over the fence and assist you with using my package rebuild scripts to
> push security updates.
>
> Please tell me a contact and I'll provide the person with suitable
> access.
>
> I also still have root access to dev.openwrt.org hosting the Trac,
> though you could reach out to Mirko as well to get access to the system.
>
> Luka mentioned that OpenWrt plans to move to Github, we'd be very happy
> if we could spare you the conversion work - we have a cleanly converted
> repository available at https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/source.git
> which you could use as starting point for future developments - that
> repository maps the historic SVN and CVS branch/tag structure as good
> as possible to proper Git branches and tags. I also took some care in
> converting svn committer nicknames to proper authors.
>
> We did equivalent conversions for the old packages and old feeds svn
> repositories in https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/packages.git and
> https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/feeds.git .
>
> Finally I'd like to hand over my non-root access to the OpenWrt
> buildmaster which I'd hand over to interested OpenWrt people. I took
> over maintenance for some time because Travis has been rather busy with
> real life these days.
>
> If there is truly some interest among the remaining OpenWrt folks to
> reunite while adopting the visions and working modes of LEDE then
> please speak up and tell us about your demands.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Jo
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@li

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Kathy Giori]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think the status quo has now been described several times and can be
> summarized as:
>
>  - Launching the new LEDE project/fork/reboot without discussing
>matters in advance with the developers not being involved was
>perceived in a hostile action damaging OpenWrt
>
>  - It has been claimed that any changes implemented by LEDE can be
>likewise implemented in OpenWrt as well, obviously not 100%
>identically without prior discussion but at least in a way keeping
>original intents and spirits
>
>  - Both sides expressed the wish to reunite on several occasions
>
> I very much apologize for the huge surprise the LEDE project has been
> to you and I do regret the fact that we didn't discuss it earlier with
> you guys. Some of us got caught in the belief that building a new,
> shiny sandpit according to our liking would be the better course of
> action compared to drastically changing OpenWrt for something not
> guaranteed to work in the long run.
>
> That being said I still think that LEDE already is a success, at least
> in my personal perception. When I mention "we" here I mean all the
> people having participated in LEDE, regardless of affiliation or agenda.
>
> Notable points are:
>
>  - We managed to figure out workflows supporting both mailing-list /
>patchwork-driven development and a more contributor oriented pull
>request model
>
>  - We figured out how to have a linear history without resorting to
>limiting ourselves to svn now (which was the sole argument for
>keeping it btw.)
>
>  - We reworked the buildbots to be more efficient
>
>  - We managed to quickly acquire donations, specifically regarding
>mirror space and build bot capacity
>
>  - We based the web page on a Git repo and mirrored that to Github
>in order to let people contribute
>
>  - We attempted to do everything publically [since the LEDE announcemnt]
>and retroactively published communication regarding the project
>implementation
>
>  - We have between three to four people per server having root access,
>with at least one person not being affiliated with "the cabal"
>
> On the other hand we didn't yet manage to:
>
>  - Clearly communicate our past and future intents upfront and after
>the fact
>
>  - Start a proper discussion with OpenWrt regarding the future direction
>of both projects
>
>  - Untangle the infrastructure (wiki.openwrt.org, dev.openwrt.org,
>git.openwrt.org)
>
>
> The weak effort on both sides in talking about both projects future
> direction paralyzed progress for all of us and in the associated
> communities so I'd very much like to reach at least some agreement or
> definitive decision soon.
>
> In order to underline my honest intention I'd like to give up
> maintenance of the OpenWrt wiki and hand the data / SSH access over to
> you guys so that you can migrate / maintain / rework it as you deem
> fitting.
>
> We're also still in possession of the secret build key for the CC
> release used to sign the package repositories. I'd be glad to throw it
> over the fence and assist you with using my package rebuild scripts to
> push security updates.
>
> Please tell me a contact and I'll provide the person with suitable
> access.
>
> I also still have root access to dev.openwrt.org hosting the Trac,
> though you could reach out to Mirko as well to get access to the system.
>
> Luka mentioned that OpenWrt plans to move to Github, we'd be very happy
> if we could spare you the conversion work - we have a cleanly converted
> repository available at https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/source.git
> which you could use as starting point for future developments - that
> repository maps the historic SVN and CVS branch/tag structure as good
> as possible to proper Git branches and tags. I also took some care in
> converting svn committer nicknames to proper authors.
>
> We did equivalent conversions for the old packages and old feeds svn
> repositories in https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/packages.git and
> https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/feeds.git .
>
> Finally I'd like to hand over my non-root access to the OpenWrt
> buildmaster which I'd hand over to interested OpenWrt people. I took
> over maintenance for some time because Travis has been rather busy with
> real life these days.
>
> If there is truly some interest among the remaining OpenWrt folks to
> reunite while adopting the visions and working modes of LEDE then
> please speak up and tell us about your demands.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Jo

Jo,

I appreciate your well-written summary and the notable improvements.
Moving to git and keeping history, improving the web site and
documentation to enable more collaboration, making workflows more
efficient and open, etc. had been discussed during face-to-face
gatherings of OpenWrt core + industry, at ELCE events over the past
couple years. I got involved as a liaison from the perspective 

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Jo-Philipp Wich]

Hi all,

I think the status quo has now been described several times and can be
summarized as:

 - Launching the new LEDE project/fork/reboot without discussing
   matters in advance with the developers not being involved was
   perceived in a hostile action damaging OpenWrt

 - It has been claimed that any changes implemented by LEDE can be
   likewise implemented in OpenWrt as well, obviously not 100%
   identically without prior discussion but at least in a way keeping
   original intents and spirits

 - Both sides expressed the wish to reunite on several occasions

I very much apologize for the huge surprise the LEDE project has been
to you and I do regret the fact that we didn't discuss it earlier with
you guys. Some of us got caught in the belief that building a new,
shiny sandpit according to our liking would be the better course of
action compared to drastically changing OpenWrt for something not
guaranteed to work in the long run.

That being said I still think that LEDE already is a success, at least
in my personal perception. When I mention "we" here I mean all the
people having participated in LEDE, regardless of affiliation or agenda.

Notable points are:

 - We managed to figure out workflows supporting both mailing-list /
   patchwork-driven development and a more contributor oriented pull
   request model

 - We figured out how to have a linear history without resorting to
   limiting ourselves to svn now (which was the sole argument for
   keeping it btw.)

 - We reworked the buildbots to be more efficient

 - We managed to quickly acquire donations, specifically regarding
   mirror space and build bot capacity

 - We based the web page on a Git repo and mirrored that to Github
   in order to let people contribute

 - We attempted to do everything publically [since the LEDE announcemnt]
   and retroactively published communication regarding the project
   implementation

 - We have between three to four people per server having root access,
   with at least one person not being affiliated with "the cabal"

On the other hand we didn't yet manage to:

 - Clearly communicate our past and future intents upfront and after
   the fact

 - Start a proper discussion with OpenWrt regarding the future direction
   of both projects

 - Untangle the infrastructure (wiki.openwrt.org, dev.openwrt.org,
   git.openwrt.org)


The weak effort on both sides in talking about both projects future
direction paralyzed progress for all of us and in the associated
communities so I'd very much like to reach at least some agreement or
definitive decision soon.

In order to underline my honest intention I'd like to give up
maintenance of the OpenWrt wiki and hand the data / SSH access over to
you guys so that you can migrate / maintain / rework it as you deem
fitting.

We're also still in possession of the secret build key for the CC
release used to sign the package repositories. I'd be glad to throw it
over the fence and assist you with using my package rebuild scripts to
push security updates.

Please tell me a contact and I'll provide the person with suitable
access.

I also still have root access to dev.openwrt.org hosting the Trac,
though you could reach out to Mirko as well to get access to the system.

Luka mentioned that OpenWrt plans to move to Github, we'd be very happy
if we could spare you the conversion work - we have a cleanly converted
repository available at https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/source.git
which you could use as starting point for future developments - that
repository maps the historic SVN and CVS branch/tag structure as good
as possible to proper Git branches and tags. I also took some care in
converting svn committer nicknames to proper authors.

We did equivalent conversions for the old packages and old feeds svn
repositories in https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/packages.git and
https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/feeds.git .

Finally I'd like to hand over my non-root access to the OpenWrt
buildmaster which I'd hand over to interested OpenWrt people. I took
over maintenance for some time because Travis has been rather busy with
real life these days.

If there is truly some interest among the remaining OpenWrt folks to
reunite while adopting the visions and working modes of LEDE then
please speak up and tell us about your demands.


Best wishes,
Jo
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 01:13 -0700, mbm wrote:
> 
> [snip] 
> > Let's see if any of the remaining OpenWrt devs at least publicly support
> > adopting them or some variation of them.  As I've said before my
> > impression is that LEDE-style rules are not all that welcomed (and
> > that's based on the interactions I saw on the private openwrt channels
> > when I was a developer, not just a pure outsider view; it's possible my
> > impression is wrong, but the toxicity described previously was in large
> > part negative reaction by folkds in the LEDE team to toxic comments from
> > at least one of the remaining OpenWrt devs; certainly it damaged my
> > opinion of him (although the toxicity also damaged my opinion of a
> > couple of LEDE folks too)).
> Sigh...
> 
> It's not as if LEDE offered the changes to OpenWrt and we voted
> against them causing a split -- there was literally no discussion and
> no warning prior to the public announcement. LEDE just suddenly
> existed and the story quickly became that the reason for their
> existence was because OpenWrt somehow prevented them from making
> changes. At no point did OpenWrt veto changes or even have the option
> to; the truth is that we agree changes need to be made. By not

I guess part of the problem is that the LEDE team didn't believe that
changes would actually be possible, because the toxic way in certain
members interacted made reasonable discussion impossible (this is not a
one-sided thing either IMO).  Certain if transparency and greater
community participation, and more opportunities for new blood to join,
were adopted by OpenWrt, and a reasonable set of rules (i.e. not
necessarily LEDE's rules) regarding who makes the decisions (e.g. I'm
not sure I entirely buy LEDE's only committers should vote, if the goal
is truly a greater community voice, although if committers are the only
ones voting then I agree that it should be active committers, not just
anyone who was at one time active; I think a notion of activity should
include measure other that commits, however (I don't buy that the only
thing that matters in an open source project is code commits))

Also a number of the other rules make sense, although I don't see that
merger means that LEDE rules should necessarily be adopted as-is with no
discussion.

> including OpenWrt in the discussions LEDE ran afoul of their own
> transparency leading to the false impression that OpenWrt was somehow
> against the changes, causing a split in the community in terms of LEDE
> vs OpenWrt with various amounts of hostility on the mailing lists.
> None of this is healthy or constructive.

That is largely my fault for expression my impressions that I had
because of the toxic interactions between developers when I was on the
private channel.  I apologize for that, for all the good it will do (I
don't know as there is anything I can do now to fix that).

I would submit, however, that a solution to the toxicity is essential to
any merger.  Part of the reason I stepped down is that I wasn't helping
matters because of personal issues (and have done it again more publicly
now).  I can't fix that, but I *can* point out that the the environment
that creates this situation needs to be fixed.
> 
> Let me be very clear: nobody on the OpenWrt side is against the
> changes LEDE is trying to make. It is our position that this whole
> thing is a misunderstanding and that the projects should attempt to
> merge again. I have been trying to arrange talks between the two sides
> but between work schedules, timezone conflicts and FUD regarding the
> split it's been very difficult.
> 
I would very much like to see openwrt and lede merge, but I know I'm not
the calm voice that can make that happen.  You and Hauke (for example)
may be the calm heads that could make this happen, although it takes the
more headstrong ones being willing to listen to you.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 25 May 2016 at 10:09, mbm  wrote:
> The hackers email address represents the primary point of contact for
> OpenWrt, particularly in regards to donations. Following the surprise LEDE
> announcement, forwarding rules for @openwrt.org email addresses were
> disabled. This was done to mitigate further damage to OpenWrt due to
> misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise.

Hackers e-mail address (mailing list) was also used for internal
discussions. You not only disabled forwarding rules for @openwrt.org
personal e-mails but also kicked out private e-mails from the hackers
mailing list.
I never really cared about hardware donations offered to hackers, but
knowing what's going on (like release plans) is important for
contributing.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Bjørn Mork]

mbm  writes:

> The hackers email address represents the primary point of contact for
> OpenWrt, particularly in regards to donations. Following the surprise
> LEDE announcement, forwarding rules for @openwrt.org email addresses
> were disabled. This was done to mitigate further damage to OpenWrt due
> to misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise.

Failing to see the damage your action has caused is your biggest problem
right now. Even if we accept the rather far fetched possibilty of
misrepresentation, there is no way that can outweight the effect on the
maintainership status OpenWrt.

Right now, 95 of the 145 (PKG_)MAINTAINER entries for OpenWrt packages
points to an openwrt.org email address belonging to a LEDE committer:

 bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/openwrt$ git grep 
'MAINTAINER:=.*<\(lynxis\|noltari\|dangole\|nbd\|hauke\|jow\|blogic\|neoraider\|rmilecki\|cyrus\|stintel\|thess\)@openwrt.org>'
 origin/master -- package/|wc -l
95
 bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/openwrt$ git grep 'MAINTAINER' origin/master -- 
package/|wc -l
145

I don't know if all these were disabled, but the package I tried to
submit to after the split was one of these.  You don't seem to
understand the devastating effect it has on OpenWrt if occasional
contributors gets an email bounce from the published maintainer
address.  There is no way you can blame those maintainers for this
situation.  The problem is solely the responsibility of whoever decided
to disable those addresses.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[mbm]

Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:56:38 -0400
From: Daniel Dickinson
To: OpenWrt Development List
Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE
Message-ID: <1464126998.1239.137.camel@homehost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

[snip]

Let's see if any of the remaining OpenWrt devs at least publicly support
adopting them or some variation of them.  As I've said before my
impression is that LEDE-style rules are not all that welcomed (and
that's based on the interactions I saw on the private openwrt channels
when I was a developer, not just a pure outsider view; it's possible my
impression is wrong, but the toxicity described previously was in large
part negative reaction by folkds in the LEDE team to toxic comments from
at least one of the remaining OpenWrt devs; certainly it damaged my
opinion of him (although the toxicity also damaged my opinion of a
couple of LEDE folks too)).

Sigh...

It's not as if LEDE offered the changes to OpenWrt and we voted against 
them causing a split -- there was literally no discussion and no warning 
prior to the public announcement. LEDE just suddenly existed and the 
story quickly became that the reason for their existence was because 
OpenWrt somehow prevented them from making changes. At no point did 
OpenWrt veto changes or even have the option to; the truth is that we 
agree changes need to be made. By not including OpenWrt in the 
discussions LEDE ran afoul of their own transparency leading to the 
false impression that OpenWrt was somehow against the changes, causing a 
split in the community in terms of LEDE vs OpenWrt with various amounts 
of hostility on the mailing lists. None of this is healthy or constructive.


Let me be very clear: nobody on the OpenWrt side is against the changes 
LEDE is trying to make. It is our position that this whole thing is a 
misunderstanding and that the projects should attempt to merge again. I 
have been trying to arrange talks between the two sides but between work 
schedules, timezone conflicts and FUD regarding the split it's been very 
difficult.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[mbm]

Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:26:37 +0200
From: Rafał Miłecki
To: Hauke Mehrtens
Cc: OpenWrt Development List,  LEDE
Development List
Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

[snip]

*However*  I'd like to maintain 15.05 OpenWrt branch for some time (few
months?). Unfortunately I feel unsure about my access to OpenWrt repo
in the future. First some @openwrt.org e-mails were deleted/disabled.
That made me ask about my commiting permissions:
[2016-05-05] [14:41:32]  [mbm]: Kaloz: can we still commit to OpenWrt?
[2016-05-05] [14:45:28]  as far as I know you can
[2016-05-05] [16:21:09]  rmilecki: yes
it looked fine, but few days later I was kicked out of
openwrt-hackers@ mailing list silently.



There is no relation between email addresses and commit access. At no 
point was commit access revoked for any LEDE members nor have any email 
messages been deleted. You are encouraged to continue contributing.


The hackers email address represents the primary point of contact for 
OpenWrt, particularly in regards to donations. Following the surprise 
LEDE announcement, forwarding rules for @openwrt.org email addresses 
were disabled. This was done to mitigate further damage to OpenWrt due 
to misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise.


It is hoped that the projects may yet merge and the email access will be 
restored.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 21:19 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: 
> > > Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation
> > > discussion in another place.
> 
> Perhaps the issue is the notion of a monolithic culture - that is *not*
> what meant.  There are variations and subgroups, and individual
> differences, no doubt about that.  The point is that there are different
> demographics who grew up with different rules than others, and perhaps

Perhaps your objection is the notion with any kind of general statement
about a group.  Personally I think as long as one recognized that such
statements are *statistical predictions* and not necessarily
representative of a given individual.  This is true, but is also true
that one can make predictions, or at rate useful guesses, about
*potential* reasons for someone's actions or beliefs.

The object is not to pigeonhole, but, given minimal information, to
attempt to *understand and address* things that give rise to disputes.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 20:57 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: 
> On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote: 
> > >
> > > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> > > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
> > > individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our
> > > expectation is that it is just as valid in the public domain as in the
> > > private.
> 
> > Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation
> > discussion in another place.

Perhaps the issue is the notion of a monolithic culture - that is *not*
what meant.  There are variations and subgroups, and individual
differences, no doubt about that.  The point is that there are different
demographics who grew up with different rules than others, and perhaps
culture was too broad a term, but understanding that other people come
to the table with different interpretations, and pointing out why we do
and say what we do important to rational dialogue, because if I say red
and you are thinking of what call blue, it's not going to be very
constructive.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote: 
> >
> > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
> > individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our
> > expectation is that it is just as valid in the public domain as in the
> > private.

> Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation
> discussion in another place.

The point was that Hauke is perfectly reasonable to expect that he can
speak for himself (if you disagree then it will negatively impact your
ability to interact well with those on this list), and that I was
attempting to point out to someone who appears to be from a different
country, where norms *really and truly* are different.  Failing to be
aware of, and prepared to find reasonable ways to deal with (even if
just pointing out this, this is what we expect, which is different than
what you may be used to expecting) people who have quite different
learned interpretations of interactions is to *deny reality*.

We live in a world where people don't all grow up with the same
playbook, and that means we're not even necessarily all trying to play
the same game, and being aware of this, and pointing out what game is
actually being played *is important to rational discourse*.

It doesn't mean we have to live by someone elses expectations (if that
was what you were upset about), but to deny that such things are true is
to fail to comprehend the world as it really is.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Yousong Zhou]

On 25 May 2016 at 07:56, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 18:18 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Hi,
>> > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
>> > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so 
>> > >> on?
>> > >>
>> > > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internally planned
>> > > with other LEDE people.
>> >
>> > If I start a discussion about my employer-related topics along a beer with
>> > a couple friends, that's a private discussion with personal opinions. If I
>> > do it on any public channel, I can be felt to represent my employer on
>> > that topic. You seem to be representing LEDE.
>> >
>>
>> That's the kind of bollock that damages the ability of employees to have
>> a right to free speech which disagrees with (or is at least
>> independently developed of) their employers views.
>>
>> As long it as someone makes it clear when they are speaking for
>> themselves and not as a representative of the group, it should be
>> accepted on that basis, unless if there is a reason to believe otherwise
>> *other than* just that the person happens to be a member of some group.
>>
>> It's kind of like saying a black who says he or she speaking for himself
>> speaks for all blacks, just because it's known he or she is black and he
>> speaks on a public channel.
>>
>> It's bollocks.  People are indivduals and have a right be such, and to
>> have, and be seen to have, views independent of the various groups the
>> are members of.
>>
>> I certainly don't speak for all white male IT professionals from North
>> America.
>>
>
> On that note, after the fact I noticed your .hu and am wondering if that
> this kind of thinking is a difference in the culture you're part of vs.
> the western cultures Hauke and I are part of?
>
> In much of 'the west' there is an expectation that individuals are free
> to speak for themselves (and be seen to be doing such) regardless of
> what group (although various corporations and governments sometimes try
> and quash such things, which most here consider a harm not a good) they
> belong to.
>
> Certainly Hauke believes he is free to speak for himself and has a
> reasonable expectation that people will accept that his opinion is his
> alone, unless he explicitly is speaking on behalf of some organization,
> like LEDE.
>
> To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
> individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our
> expectation is that it is just as valid in the public domain as in the
> private.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel

Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation
discussion in another place.

yousong

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
[snip] 
> Hi,
> >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?
> >>
> > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internally planned
> > with other LEDE people.
> 
> If I start a discussion about my employer-related topics along a beer with 
> a couple friends, that's a private discussion with personal opinions. If I 
> do it on any public channel, I can be felt to represent my employer on 
> that topic. You seem to be representing LEDE.
> 

That's the kind of bollock that damages the ability of employees to have
a right to free speech which disagrees with (or is at least
independently developed of) their employers views.

As long it as someone makes it clear when they are speaking for
themselves and not as a representative of the group, it should be
accepted on that basis, unless if there is a reason to believe otherwise
*other than* just that the person happens to be a member of some group.

It's kind of like saying a black who says he or she speaking for himself
speaks for all blacks, just because it's known he or she is black and he
speaks on a public channel.

It's bollocks.  People are indivduals and have a right be such, and to
have, and be seen to have, views independent of the various groups the
are members of.

I certainly don't speak for all white male IT professionals from North
America.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 18:18 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: 
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> [snip] 
> > Hi,
> > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so 
> > >> on?
> > >>
> > > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internally planned
> > > with other LEDE people.
> > 
> > If I start a discussion about my employer-related topics along a beer with 
> > a couple friends, that's a private discussion with personal opinions. If I 
> > do it on any public channel, I can be felt to represent my employer on 
> > that topic. You seem to be representing LEDE.
> > 
> 
> That's the kind of bollock that damages the ability of employees to have
> a right to free speech which disagrees with (or is at least
> independently developed of) their employers views.
> 
> As long it as someone makes it clear when they are speaking for
> themselves and not as a representative of the group, it should be
> accepted on that basis, unless if there is a reason to believe otherwise
> *other than* just that the person happens to be a member of some group.
> 
> It's kind of like saying a black who says he or she speaking for himself
> speaks for all blacks, just because it's known he or she is black and he
> speaks on a public channel.
> 
> It's bollocks.  People are indivduals and have a right be such, and to
> have, and be seen to have, views independent of the various groups the
> are members of.
> 
> I certainly don't speak for all white male IT professionals from North
> America.
> 

On that note, after the fact I noticed your .hu and am wondering if that
this kind of thinking is a difference in the culture you're part of vs.
the western cultures Hauke and I are part of?

In much of 'the west' there is an expectation that individuals are free
to speak for themselves (and be seen to be doing such) regardless of
what group (although various corporations and governments sometimes try
and quash such things, which most here consider a harm not a good) they
belong to.

Certainly Hauke believes he is free to speak for himself and has a
reasonable expectation that people will accept that his opinion is his
alone, unless he explicitly is speaking on behalf of some organization,
like LEDE.

To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our
expectation is that it is just as valid in the public domain as in the
private.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 00:23 +0300, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
[snip] 
> > I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
> > if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
> > from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.
> 
> I believe LEDE didn't plan to contribute to OpenWrt from the very beginning.
> LEDE words are pretty contrary to the works.

I disagree. I think LEDE's biggest problem is that are not vocal like
me, but would rather just work on code and not talk and hence are
particularly *bad* at communicating and publicizing what they're
thinking and doing.  They're also incredibly busy people with work that
doesn't involve community openwrt/lede, which limits exactly what they
can do.

One could instance of this is the patches I thought were being ignored
and just disappearing were in fact being considered and where needed
better made to fit the project's needs - the issue was that I didn't
*know* this because Felix and John, especially, tend to 'don't talk,
just do' and so I didn't realize what was actually the case.

This is something it appears Felix and Jo, at least, are making efforts
to improve in LEDE.

> 
> > I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> > LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?
> 
> How many devs do you think it's possible to attract to OpenWrt having
> the promotion LEDE does and remembering the fact that most active devs
> went to LEDE?
> Same rules could be applied inside OpenWrt as I see it.

Let's see if any of the remaining OpenWrt devs at least publicly support
adopting them or some variation of them.  As I've said before my
impression is that LEDE-style rules are not all that welcomed (and
that's based on the interactions I saw on the private openwrt channels
when I was a developer, not just a pure outsider view; it's possible my
impression is wrong, but the toxicity described previously was in large
part negative reaction by folkds in the LEDE team to toxic comments from
at least one of the remaining OpenWrt devs; certainly it damaged my
opinion of him (although the toxicity also damaged my opinion of a
couple of LEDE folks too)).

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hi,


On 05/24/2016 10:31 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:

As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.


The point you are missing is that some of the OpenWrt core team is living 
in a non-EU timezone. We can pick a PDT timeslot that won't work for 
anyone living in EU, and say that LEDE is not interested in the 
discussion, but that's just not the proper way.



Currently it looks like only Luka is working on OpenWrt as he committed
many patches from LEDE to OpenWrt, which is fine.


It is one thing that there are no commits currently from anyone, until the 
OpenWrt/LEDE discussions are made.



What will happen to the OpenWrt project? To me it looks like nobody
except Luka is interested in working on OpenWrt. Are there any plans to
continue the OpenWrt project or will it just die, only nobody wants to
say it?


See above. We don't plan to play dead. Also, IIRC there are patches for
targets which are/were maintained by LEDE members. As far as I know,
commit rights have not been revoked (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).


Currently this is a bad situation for people that want to contribute
patches because they do not exactly know were to contribute, some post
them just to both list which is probably the best solution for the time
we do not have a real solution.


Yes, there might be some confusion about this, we are still lagging a bit 
behind due to the surprise fork. Luka sent a mail on some of the 
planned moves, please refer to that thread. (Jow, thanks for the 
buildbot-related number crunching.)



I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.

I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?


This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internally planned
with other LEDE people.


If I start a discussion about my employer-related topics along a beer with 
a couple friends, that's a private discussion with personal opinions. If I 
do it on any public channel, I can be felt to represent my employer on 
that topic. You seem to be representing LEDE.


Regards,
-w-
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 24 May 2016 at 22:31, Hauke Mehrtens  wrote:
> As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
> interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
> a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
>
> Currently it looks like only Luka is working on OpenWrt as he committed
> many patches from LEDE to OpenWrt, which is fine.
>
> What will happen to the OpenWrt project? To me it looks like nobody
> except Luka is interested in working on OpenWrt. Are there any plans to
> continue the OpenWrt project or will it just die, only nobody wants to
> say it?
> Currently this is a bad situation for people that want to contribute
> patches because they do not exactly know were to contribute, some post
> them just to both list which is probably the best solution for the time
> we do not have a real solution.
>
> I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
> if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
> from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.
>
>
> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?

I'll speak for myself.

I feel more comfortable with LEDE:
1) Rules are straight there
2) No single people controlling infrastructure and refusing to help
3) No decisions made behind the doors
That will make me focus on LEDE. Of course this is open source world,
OpenWrt can pick my changes.

*However* I'd like to maintain 15.05 OpenWrt branch for some time (few
months?). Unfortunately I feel unsure about my access to OpenWrt repo
in the future. First some @openwrt.org e-mails were deleted/disabled.
That made me ask about my commiting permissions:
[2016-05-05] [14:41:32]  [mbm]: Kaloz: can we still commit to OpenWrt?
[2016-05-05] [14:45:28]  as far as I know you can
[2016-05-05] [16:21:09]  rmilecki: yes
it looked fine, but few days later I was kicked out of
openwrt-hackers@ mailing list silently.

I really would like to have a straight message from whoever takes
these decisions at OpenWrt. What are your plans? Do you want me/us to
stop contributing to OpenWrt?

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 24 May 2016 at 23:31, Hauke Mehrtens  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
> interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
> a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
>
> Currently it looks like only Luka is working on OpenWrt as he committed
> many patches from LEDE to OpenWrt, which is fine.
>
> What will happen to the OpenWrt project? To me it looks like nobody
> except Luka is interested in working on OpenWrt. Are there any plans to
> continue the OpenWrt project or will it just die, only nobody wants to
> say it?
> Currently this is a bad situation for people that want to contribute
> patches because they do not exactly know were to contribute, some post
> them just to both list which is probably the best solution for the time
> we do not have a real solution.
>
> I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
> if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
> from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.

I believe LEDE didn't plan to contribute to OpenWrt from the very beginning.
LEDE words are pretty contrary to the works.

> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?

How many devs do you think it's possible to attract to OpenWrt having
the promotion LEDE does and remembering the fact that most active devs
went to LEDE?
Same rules could be applied inside OpenWrt as I see it.

Regards,
Roman
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Hauke Mehrtens]

add lede-dev

On 05/24/2016 10:31 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
> interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
> a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
> 
> Currently it looks like only Luka is working on OpenWrt as he committed
> many patches from LEDE to OpenWrt, which is fine.
> 
> What will happen to the OpenWrt project? To me it looks like nobody
> except Luka is interested in working on OpenWrt. Are there any plans to
> continue the OpenWrt project or will it just die, only nobody wants to
> say it?
> Currently this is a bad situation for people that want to contribute
> patches because they do not exactly know were to contribute, some post
> them just to both list which is probably the best solution for the time
> we do not have a real solution.
> 
> I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
> if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
> from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.
> 
> 
> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?
> 
> Hauke

This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internally planned
with other LEDE people.

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