On 22/12/2016 08:24, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
> Dear All,
> I started to contribute to LEDE recently and after the spin-off.
> When I decided where to port my contribution I considered the "focus on
> stability and functionality" more interesting than the "bleeding edge
> functionality", therefore I selected LEDE.
> Now I understand that a merge is ongoing.
> Can I ask to the people taking care about the merge how the trade-off
> between stability and bleeding edge is solved?
we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree and
use openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the
openwrt folks made it a condition for the merger that this may not be
the case. i think the sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one
project/tree or dont merge"
i am still very much in favour of having 2 trees, one stable and one dev
tree. this would allow everyone to choose what they think fits their
needs best.
>
> In my opinion a coordination/collaboration between the two project is for
> sure a benefit for both, but having a single product will generate an
> ambiguous and ineffective trade-off.
> Why don't keep two product line with different focus on stability and
> bleeding edge and merge what really make sense for both?
>
> At the end the market share will answer if a single product make sense or
> not.
>
> By the way where can I find the minute of the meetings?
they were posted last night on the mailing lists
John
>
> Bye.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
