Dear Bjørn, > But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are > working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who > "we" are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is > defintitely not an invitation to participate. And the completely > contentless "a solution" just emphasize that. Not exactly opening up > for public discussion.
Felix reached out to the OpenWrt on 15th and asked whether there's any interest in having a constructive IRC debate to discuss the future of both projects and Hauke subsequently did set up a vote in order to find a suitable time frame. The vote is ongoing but atm it looks like it will become Wednesday, May 25th at 18:00 GMT. > And it has been more than a few days now... Or maybe I'm not patient > enough. Maybe, maybe not. Personally I expect the discussion process to last for a few weeks to come. > Yes, I understand perfectly well that resources are scarce, and that > I have no right to point to these issues while not actually > contributing myself. You have every right to point out issues and personally I am grateful for constructive input, just try to be clear and explicit when raising concerns. > But all the problems you listed with the OpenWrt project were similar > - lack of resources. Forking to solve that problem will not help. It already helped to achieve a few things envisioned, some of them would have been possible within OpenWrt, some not. - Decisions and meetings made wrt. the project got recorded and published - Build servers got sponsored and integrated into Builbot - Download server mirrors got sponsored and are automatically synced now - We managed to figure out a working mode where people can easily contribute via both Github and mailing list patches while we can still keep a somewhat linear repository history - Web site resources are put into Git so people can contribute to them - Multiple active persons being able to deal with server matters - Some work has been started to produce and improve documentation - Felix and John started tackling image build problems complicating releases in the past - I published our buildbot setup so people can reproduce the things being done to create binaries - I decoupled feeds from target builds in order to enable us doing binary package updates in the future (think security issues) > Which is why I try to give you a hard time now. Don't know if I have > enough "oomph" to actually do that. If you don't see that LEDE is > OpenWrt with less developers, then someone must point that out to > you. As you pointed out yourself, it is the result that matters and so far fewer developers produced more changes in less time compared to OpenWrt. > Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some > developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are > not enough. It's the result that matters. I certainly agree but we should avoid applying double standards here, I doubt that people expected any "results that matter" within a time frame of only two weeks from OpenWrt. That being said I welcome your effort in scrutinizing the project, this will certainly help us not loosing focus in the future. ~ Jo _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
