The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped automatically by the mailing list software.
--- Begin Message ---On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:31 PM Jeff <j...@wagsky.com> wrote: > Wow, I would have thought a simple > > "Thank you for your submission. We appreciate your commercial concerns. > We look forward to your future submissions on the ath79 platform." > > would have been more than enough. > > GL.iNet is one of the few OEMs that commercially benefit from OpenWrt > development that take the time to try to return patches and enhancements > directly to the project. "Don't waste our time" comes through loud and > clear. If I were an OEM, why should I bother submitting patches? There > is real opportunity cost associated with doing so, and not very much > tangible benefit compared to maintaining their own "private" branch. > > That the ath79 target on Linux 4.14 doesn't support NAND makes it > challenging for a manufacturer to simply switch over their entire code > development. Yes, patches for ath79 on Linux 4.19 dropped a week or two > ago. However, a reputable manufacturer isn't going to ship product on an > untested code line. So far I have seen that batman-adv won't even > compile under ath79/4.19. Also, while the framework is supposedly > present for NAND in Linux 4.19, as far as I know no devices have been > demonstrated to be able to use it under OpenWrt. Not that I expect those > things to magically happen, but they do make it challenging for a > responsible OEM to switch over as easily as a hobbyist. > > > Jeff > For what it's worth to say from "back here from the side", I don't think the "waste our time" was meant as bad as it did indeed sounded... The thing still is that AR71xx target is planned to be obsoleted after very next OpenWrt stable version, so it doesn't make that much sense figuring out anything major for that target. Unfortunately, like Jeff pointed out too, ATH79 isn't 100% working in all areas, but that can only change with developing... There is also "clash" of new codebase and MFG releasing mature enough stuff. That is something that allways will exist. All I can say to that is that an device MFG builds and does whatever they deem to be best practice (to them), if it is sticking to codebase that is on phase of being obsolete, they can do so. It will work for current devices and even new devices appearing in near-future, but it will not be long-term solution... Also one should think that having new codebase that is deemed to be overally better, everyone should focus on developing that instead of burden of figuring out similar stuff for 2 codebases... These kind of transitions are never painless... Best regards, -- Sami Olmari
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
