On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:31 PM, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote: > [..] > 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.
I too have liked this idea since I first heard it. Upstream Wi-Fi has a "wireless-testing" branch, which keeps merging in new development. It's not really meant to be "unstable" but there is higher risk of breakage than a stable branch that has had far more use and testing. In another thread you mentioned how the name "lede" came from the lead article in print -- the analogy kind of fits. * new development goes into the OpenWrt LEDE branch -- latest code, latest "news" * new releases (since the split) could be called "version 1.x -- OpenWrt LEDE edition" (or continue alphabetical letters as before if you want) * for those "in the know" (devs on these mailing lists), the extra "LEDE" branding matching the enhancements enabled because of the split seems beneficial (project image and growth enhanced) * for those "in the dark", more casual or ad hoc users, the http redirect seems not just beneficial, but downright important to help those casual users find a new stable release from the LEDE branch, once it is available. (marketing 101 -- ability to pop to the top of a google search is more important than how someone pronounces your project). I think you (and the other big contributors) are doing an excellent job. And I admire your continued emphasis on transparency and open communication. It makes the project stronger and I see a lot of positive responses from the community, because of that openness. A merge of effort, via an agreement by all you talented developers to work together, under contribution guidelines and processes that you can all follow and feel good about, would make for a Happy New Year! good luck! kg _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
