> Le 21 juil. 2018 à 10:17, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> a écrit : > > > > On 21/07/18 09:44, Thibaut wrote: >>> Le 21 juil. 2018 à 09:24, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19/07/18 20:08, Thibaut wrote: >>>>> On 19 Jul 2018, at 19:52, Mathias Kresin <d...@kresin.me> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2018-07-19 19:26 GMT+02:00 Thibaut VARÈNE <ha...@slashdirt.org>: >>>>>> faf94d926e2810f895f2a98d4a49ee2fe8f673e8 added "support" for a hacked >>>>>> device where the original boot loader (routerboot) has been replaced >>>>>> by u-boot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Support for this device with stock bootloader is possible (as evidenced >>>>>> by support for the RBM33G), and conflicts with this code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remove code before release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thibaut VARÈNE <ha...@slashdirt.org> >>>>> FYI, I already NAK'ed the very same patch on github. >>>>> >>>>> I do agree that it can be done better by not requiring the replacement >>>>> of the bootloader. Nevertheless, support for this board is already >>>>> shipped since LEDE-17.01 and I don't agree to drop support for a board >>>>> without providing an alternative/fixed/better image. >>>> Just to clarify: this is not “support”. This is a user created custom hack >>>> that applies only to their modified board. >>>> >>>> T. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> openwrt-devel mailing list >>>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel >>> Hi, >>> I agree that proper support for none modified boards is far better and I am >>> always for having such support in tree. what i am failing to understand >>> here is why it is so important to remove this support or none-support patch >>> from the tree ? in general our stance was that if there is at least one >>> user we'll try to carry the functionality as long as we can. So why not >>> remove this when a better replacement is in place ? >> Because there will be no replacement and I certainly don’t want to confuse >> the end users into thinking there will be one. >> >> I don’t know yet another way to say this more clearly: this patch doesn’t >> “drop support”: support was _never there_. There will be no “replacement”: >> there is no upgrade path. >> >> What this patch does is dropping bad code. What there will be is proper, >> correct NEW support for the hardware this code /pretends/ to offer support >> for but doesn’t. >> >> At the end of the day the device covered by this code is a /different/ >> device than the one support will be provided for. It’s A Frankendevice, that >> by the way doesn’t even pass the “hardware available?” question. The >> installation instructions on the wiki do not even provision a way to revert >> the hack. >> >> On a side note, if it’s a policy to support every user hack and bastardized >> hardware for which there is only one user _in tree_, then we have a >> fundamental difference in opinion and I’m afraid openwrt is then inflicting >> on itself a maintenance nightmare it can’t afford. >> >> My 2c, >> T > well, that certainly killed the discussion ....
Trying hard to explain my reasoning kills the discussion? I’m frankly baffled. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
