On 27/12/2016 08:08, David Lang wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> This sounds good at first listen, but doesn't actually work.
Hi David,
again you start your contribution with, "there is only one way and no
alternatives" this somewhat kills the discussion.
>
> tl;dr this is a "I think you should do a lot of boring work" plan.
> nobody is volunteering to do the work
>
we already have 2-3 volunteers and will most have a release branch that
we maintain. i think you somewhat misunderstood what the discussion here
is. the discussion is not whether there will be 2 trees, but how to name
them and what domains to host the under ... and it is off-topic really.
no one mentioned that one half of the team will do one tree and the
other the other tree. there will be people putting their work focus on
this but that does not mean they wont be doing other work that they were
previously involved in. also making it sound like that this separation
will be based on current project membership status is just false and
paints a really wrong and counter productive image of the on going
discussion.
the statements from the owrt side that you are quoting were never made.
something similar was said but your representation is simply false
i agree on the part that we need to provide a stable tree for people to
trust it, but your "it'll be out dated" is just painting the world black
and i simply don't agree with that statement.
John
> people don't want a 'stable branch' with only known good stuff in it,
> they want a 'stable' branch with all the latest features added, but none
> of the bugs that go with those features.
>
> If you could identify the bugs, they wouldn't be buggy in the bleeding
> edge version.
>
> It also takes a lot of manpower to maintain the stable branch, and those
> people are not able to work on anything new and interesting (because
> such development is, by definition, not yet stable)
>
> It also generates a LOT of support questions, esepecially of the "why
> doesn't X work in the stable branch yet"
>
> The OpenWRT folks have said that they are not willing to become the
> 'stable' developers, if they merge the trees/projects, they want to be
> able to work on whatever they want without being tied down with some
> sort of 'stable' criteria
>
> If you think it's a great idea, organize a team to make stable versions
> of what OpenWRT/LEDE release. If you are able to sustain the results for
> a few versions, people may start to trust and use it (or they may just
> use the more up-to-date tree)
>
> David Lang (who has no authority within LEDE or OpenWRT)
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
