[OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

Wed Jun 8 05:12:07 EDT 2016

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-hackers at 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 at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel