Hi all,
I'm wondering if there is an easy way to use trunk userspace with the stable
release's wireless (and if necessary the rest of the kernel). The reason I
ask ask is that at this time my primary concern with doing dog-fooding with
things I develop for LEDE is that I can end up with wireless
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 09:08:02 +0100
e9hack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lusi/Statistics doesn't work any more. For every page, I got an
> error, for example:
> https://my-box.lan/cgi-bin/luci/admin/statistics/graph/uptime?
>
> The browser shows this:
> /usr/lib/lua/luci/dispatcher.lua:380: Failed to execute
Hi all,
The recent host staging changes are causing breakage in the packages
feed, advising packages folks of how to fix that is needed (or if a
core fix is needed, doing that).
Regards,
Daniel
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
ht
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:28:24 +0200
Daniel Golle wrote:
> hi!
>
> i believe that on some targets it would be nice to have cgroups,
> namespaces, seccomp and misc stuff needed for LXC as well as systemd-
> based guests enabled by default.
> currently there is only a single default for those CONFIG
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 03:50:50 +
Eric Luehrsen wrote:
> Dave,
>
> May I quote you for pull requests to achieve "dnsmasq: make DHCPv6
> work in standalone dnsmasq installation":
> https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/704
> https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/674
>
Is there any
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 03:06:36 +
Eric Luehrsen wrote:
> >>>Sound interesting. Can it do multiple instances?
>
> (1) The UCI scripts are not configured for instances, but ...
>
> (2) It wouldn't be a good idea. Recursive servers keep a lot of
> infrastructure cache with the zone data. This
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 21:34:45 +0100
Dan Lüdtke wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> i built LEDE without dnsmasq but with odhcp instead. Mainly out of
> curiosity and to test a recent PR by Eric Luehrsen regarding
> unbound+odhcp.
Sound interesting. Can it do multiple instances?
>
> C) How easy it is to
Hi Hans,
In LuCI GitHub issue 963 (https://github.com/openwrt/luci/issues/963),
a user discovered that LuCI incorrectly reports dnsmasq infinite
leasetime as expired because the LuCI check is based on odhcpd's -1 for
INFINITE_VALID, but dnsmasq uses 0 in the dhcp.leases file for
infinite leases.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:06:22 -0500
"Hauke Mehrtens" wrote:
> We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
> between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
> merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
> developers were invited to these
Hi,
It seems my impression that there wasn't much getting discussed
was because there was some sort of list issue that prevented me
from getting incoming mails; I had whitelisted the LEDE lists
with my email provider, so there was definitely something funky
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:27:50 +0100
Hartmut Knaack wrote:
> Hi Daniel.
>
> Daniel Dickinson schrieb am 25.11.2016 um 01:26:
> >
> > To be clear, I think what I mean by lack of communication is that
> > the community doesn't see:
> >
> > 1) The
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:44:44 -0500
Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> I want to apologize for my last email. I have been in a rather
> negative state of mind lately due to medical issues, in addition to
> struggling to keep from being excessively annoying at other times.
>
> In
I want to apologize for my last email. I have been in a rather
negative state of mind lately due to medical issues, in addition to
struggling to keep from being excessively annoying at other times.
In any event, the perception of lack of transparency and such, has more
to due with lack of regular
Hi all,
Sorry for my last couple of messages, I'm re-implementing my delay
mechanism so that I don't mess things up again; I do want to help both
OpenWrt and LEDE, not create another bad situation; maybe in a week or
few the things I'm dealing with will be sorted enough to remove that.
At this po
Hi,
Several months after the split it looks like things have pretty much
ended up where they were before the split. It's starting to look like
the talk of encouraging new blood, and being more open and transparent
was more talk than real intention. As much as I've gotten busy with
personal issue
Hi all,
Ended up having some problems again and when I got back to my email I
noticed that I was getting a lot of 'too many bounces' notifications
even though I have whitelisted the mailing lists for LEDE. Any ideas?
Also, I noticed in the git log there were issues with older kernel
versions. I
Hi all,
The firewall package advertises utc_time uci option for firewall rules
and redirects, however, based in the iptables-extensions manpage, only
UTC time is supported by the time extension.
This matches my experience with attempting to use local timezone with
firewall rules based on time (do
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:09:22 +0200
Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to those understanding the package dependency logic by heart, I'm
> trying to achieve something I assumed to be common, but fail to get
> there with the help of the available documentation.
>
> The short version is this:
> * pack
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:05:43 +0200
Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Felix Fietkau [2016-10-19 21:44:06]:
>
> > I'd like to know why you need to use local time for the RTC, I think
> > that's rather uncommon.
>
> You mean system time in local time, right? RTC should be in UTC and
> in current sysftime i
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:05:43 +0200
Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Felix Fietkau [2016-10-19 21:44:06]:
>
> > I'd like to know why you need to use local time for the RTC, I think
> > that's rather uncommon.
>
> You mean system time in local time, right? RTC should be in UTC and
> in current sysftime i
Hi all,
Most of you are probably unaware of the following discussion
https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/3059 in which, in the context
of postfix specifically, but touching on what should be the policy for
the packages feed in general, it is discussed what is considered a
reasonable way to ha
Hi all,
In the interests of making LuCI2 development feasible without
losing all of LuCI in the process, I'm planning on looking to a
luci-luci2 compat mechanism that would allow LuCI2 apps to be
used from within the current LuCI framework, while preventing
Hi all,
I was in the hop for a while and while I've been out for about
a month there has been a lot to take care of. I've also gotten
a couple boughts of already this school season (from those in
the family who are in school or work at school), so that hasn't
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 11:39 -0700, Michael Heimpold wrote:
> Hi,
> could you please elaborate, why do you think that /srv is a more FHS-
> compliant choice? I agree, that /usr is really the wrong place to put
> data there, but according to my understanding of the FHS, /srv is not
> even better, bec
Hi,
Just wondering if I missed any questions or comments about the odhcpd
per-host leasetime patch I sent some time ago? I don't recall seeing
anything and I wasn't following the list all that closely for a while
for personal reasons.
Should I update and send again?
Regards,
Daniel
__
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 17:13 +0200, Josua Mayer wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I have finally found the time to look into this, and managed to
> reproduce the segfault that Álvaro noticed.
> It is caused by a call to fclose(0x0); This is very unexpected,
> shouldn't the C library check for NULL and return q
Hi all,
I'm doing better than I was although I still can't spend a whole lot of
time on LEDE.
My plan is to ditch the SDK/IB stuff I was working on since I realized
that I don't really need it anymore (my reasons for doing it have gone
away), and it's taking time away from other things.
The firs
Hi all,
Things have gotten a little crazy around here and I've not been able
spend time on LEDE, and there's indications that I may soon be
permanently unable to assist (not by my choice). Maybe I'm just having
issues, if I am things should be back on track soon and I'll be back
because I'm going
Hi all,
Much to my regret I've had to, and will continue to have to for some
time, slow down on LEDE/package/luci contributions due to life getting
quite busy, for various reasons.
Regards,
Daniel
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead
On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 13:38 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> Hi Daniel et al.
>
> after a long delay, I finally got around to looking into multi profile
> selection again. After reviewing your code and thinking about it some
> more, I decided to go with a slightly different approach from the one
> t
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 11:29 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> hope you're doing well nowadays.
>
> I sincerely appreciate your participation in the discussions surrounding
> the whole OpenWrt/LEDE topic especially since it helps giving another,
> outside perspective to the entire is
Hi,
It seems to me that one of the biggest accusations levelled at the LEDE
team is their split was not done in a transparent manner, and that they
are not yet transparent enough.
That sounds great and all as an argument, but it seems to me that from
the looks of it the LEDE team is serious abou
Hi,
Might I humbly submit that given the different timezone and the fact
that LEDE claims to be wanting to be transparent, and that remaining
OpenWrt claims to be willing to accept such policies, that Jow's
suggestion of doing the discussion openly on the openwrt-devel and
lede-dev mailings lists
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 02:57 +0200, Alexander Couzens wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:32:01 +0200
> Daniel Golle wrote:
>
> I really like this commit.
> Can you set the country *explicit* to world in /etc/config/wireless
> before appling this patch?
>
If the FCC hadn't already completely knobb
Hi Felix,
On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 13:38 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> If you have some time, feedback and patches converting profiles/* stuff
> into proper device profiles will be appreciated.
This sounds really interesting and I will try to make time to work on it
sooner rather than later. As y
Hi all,
I've recognized I have to do something about my impulse emailing and
have just finished implementing a technical solution that requires me to
verify that really do want to send the mail, and verification can't be
done until a configured amount of time has elapsed.
Hopefully this will keep
Hi all,
I just wanted to point out that for those of you on this list, but not
subscribed to github notifications for the lede-source repo that until
github discussions are hooked into this list (I think Jo is working on
that), that there are discussions relevant to this list that are
occurring in
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
[snip]
> Hi,
> >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?
> >>
> > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internal
Hi,
I've noticed that network_trigger has gone away and is replaced by
interface_trigger, but have seen raw_trigger too, and am not clear on
when one would use which.
Can you clarify?
Regard,
Daniel
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead
Hi John,
Something seems to have broken with serial console, at least on ar71xx,
possibly because the login.sh stuff.
If you don't have passwords required on the serial console and you exit
the shell, the shell doesn't respawn and you end up with no serial
access until you reboot.
Regards,
Dani
Hi Felix,
The recent changes to the device profile stuff has caused issues with
ImageBuilder. In ar71xx, if one selects the Default profile during the
core build, then even if you set make PROFILE=SOMEBOARD image, the
ImageBuilder tries to build the image for every device instead of just
the one
On 16-05-19 09:31 PM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>
> Does that mean I think LEDE is perferct? Definitely not, but I've
> already seen huge improvements compared to what was happening in
> openwrt, and a great deal more openness than was the case in openwrt.
>
> Do I think there are potenti
Hopefully before I crash tonight I will have something to report. I'm
in the process of a build now.
On 16-05-19 02:07 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/2016 13:28, l...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
>> From: Daniel Dickinson
>>
>> v2: Fix mixup of dosfsck c
On 16-05-19 02:07 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/2016 13:28, l...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
>> From: Daniel Dickinson
>>
>> v2: Fix mixup of dosfsck checking ext* and e2fsck checking vfat.
>>
>> vfat is a common filesystem which users may want to
On 16-05-18 07:31 AM, Conor O'Gorman wrote:
> On 18/05/16 12:21, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> On 05/18/2016 12:12 PM,l...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
>>> >Hi John,
>>> >
>>> >I haven't tested these changes yet,
> Testing would be good before next submission.
My goal was actually to make sure that I
On 16-05-18 07:05 AM, Conor O'Gorman wrote:
> On 18/05/16 11:12, l...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
>> +if (!strncmp(pr->id->name, "vfat", 4)) {
>> +ckfs = e2fsck;
>> +} else if (!strncmp(pr->id->name, "ext", 3)) {
>> +ckfs = dosfsck;
> Is this the wrong way round?
Do you mea
Hi,
Rather than patching every package that daemonizes itself but doesn't
provide a useful (non-debug mode) option for foregrounding the process
(or not option at all for foreground operation), would it possible to do
as systemd has done and support both a directly supervised instance
(i.e. what i
Hi all,
I had a patch that I submitted to the openwrt list sometime back that
launched multiple instances of dnsmasq, so long as the instances were
either tied to specific, non-overlapping, interfaces, or used different
dns port, but at least in the case of different interfaces it only
worked (to
Hi,
I'd really appreciate if we could actually use the mailing list for the
main communications venue rather than shutting out people not in the
European timezones, which is what happens if IRC is the main way to
participate in the community.
I have been told that to really be part of the OpenWrt
Hi all,
Was there some history rewriting or something lede-staging and/or
lede-source transition.
I have a number of branches I created against lede-staging that after
some pull diverged, and which also have a divergent set of commits from
lede-source, so I'm wondering if something non-kosher was
On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>
> breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards).
> I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting
> every time I press ENTER:
> ->8-
> Failed to e
On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Looks like one recent commit:
[snip]
>
> breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards).
> I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting
> every time I press ENTER:
> ->8
Hi all,
I just wanted to point out that there is a bit of a conflict between the
notion of having only a small numbers of merge-to-master committers and
the current rules where committers are the ones who get to vote and the
idea of having a broader consensus mode of governance.
Either 'committer
Fundamentally I disagree with you unspoken premise that 'there is no
such thing as a useless bug report'.
I agree with the *reason* the developers proposed the bug reporting
mechanism they dig, just not with mechanism itself, which is that there
*are* bug reports that are not worth the time and ef
On 16-05-08 09:55 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> But, even if the bug report is simply:
>
> "I upgraded the blue thing on my desk today and now it sucks
> but I don't really know why."
>
> It may still be useful: If you see 100 other of those bugs around the
> same time, you know there is probably s
On 16-05-08 09:24 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>> 1) I like the suggestion of one the of list members made of having
>> something on the device that you clicked on and it prefilled as much as
>> possible of the relevant information (like arch, model, etc) into the
>> bug report (for example a luci scre
Hi,
I just want to say kudos for the new output (bin) dir layout.
Separating things that are target-specific from things can be shared
among targets of the same arch is *awesome*!
Regards,
Daniel
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
One more note: if using prefilled forms (e.g. from openwrt_release) and
the triagers notice that the report is from a third party source (e.g. a
manufacturer who hasn't bothered to modified the URLs, etc), I'd suggest
a boilerplate response that indicates what LEDE is and the fact it has
no relatio
Hi,
I noticed there is at least a proposal on the table to use Mantis.
Obviously that's something I'm in favour of, but I want to help you make
it as useful as possible, including limiting how much developers having
to deal with useless bug reports (which is a problem basically every
project, rega
Also, as I mentioned in the preface (not sure if you saw), this patch
was intended to point things out for whoever does the actual patch
rather than as the patch that goes in.
Feel free to make any changes you feel necessary.
Regards,
Daniel
___
Lede-
On 16-05-07 10:48 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> Install a script on LEDE systems, including a GUI button to use it,
> that will gather basic info like dmesg, version info, radios, etc.
>
> Then, aside from total lockups, users can use that as part of the basic
> bug report.
>
> Users can just paste the
On 16-05-08 12:35 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
>
> On 06/05/2016 02:16, l...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
>> package/base-files/files/etc/openwrt_release | 7 --
>> package/base-files/files/etc/openwrt_version | 1 -
>
>
> these 2 files cannot simply be removed as that would break l
On the question of moderating bug reports (rather than trying to use a
special format to moderate bug reports which a) I don't believe will
work and b) hurts more than it helps because of the reduction in getting
bug reports at all, I would propose that you ask for volunteers (and
I'll be the first
One thing that occurs to me is that you're looking at the benefit of not
having to close pointless bug reports.
Wouldn't it make more sense, though, to still have a web form that posts
to the list (requiring the fields you want required and prompting the
user to only submit if they're sure it's ac
On 16-05-07 05:19 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> We see a big problem in how Issues at OpenWrt are handled now. OpenWrt
> has a very low barrier to report bugs and about 50% of them re not
> useful. Most people working on OpenWrt are doing this in their spare
> time and I do not think anybody gets pa
On the signature agree
On 16-05-06 08:26 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
>
> This gets back to the question about what we are trying to achieve by
> signing the commits.
>
> If the purpose is to track who put what into the central tr
On 16-05-06 08:28 PM, Kus wrote:
> Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original
> message.
Er, sorry which part - I think you mean about fast-forward only and not
the ideal world where everything is always tested no matter who it's from?
Regards,
Daniel
>
> I don
Hi David,
One thing your suggestion does though, is mean that the initial commits
are not created on the master branch (for which there are few
committers), so the idea that signing all commits shouldn't be an issue
because there are only a few special souls who create commits is not
actually the
On 16-05-06 02:58 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016, Kus wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd argue such a barrier is OK if we want to quickly increase the size
>> of the team of people with commit access. I think we're
>> underestimating our contributors here. I agree that we shouldn't have
>> unnecessary
On 16-05-05 04:16 AM, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
> David Lang - 18:20 4.05.16 wrote:
>> Debian has ...
>
> Just for the sake of discussion and inspiration, how openSUSE does it's
> rolling
> release. We have OBS, which is server software, connected to multiple
> builders.
[snip]
Thank you David a
Also on the topic of bug reports, having some mechanism for users to
report 'I also have this problem, but have nothing new to add'
launchpad-esque mechanism for finding how many people the bug affects
without spamming the tracker with 'me too', would be good.
This helps with
a) higher numbers o
On 16-05-06 11:55 AM, Kus wrote:
>
>> Regarding signing commits with GPG key, it would be nice to recommend it but
>> making it a requirement sounds like a barrier.
>
> I'd argue such a barrier is OK if we want to quickly increase the size of the
> team of people with commit access. I think we'
> As I said, the issue is not with 'only good bug reports', it's with 'we
> can ensure only good bug reports by making it a pain to report bugs at all'.
I'd also like to point out that if the approach is being taken on the
assumption that on technically advanced people write good reports, then
I'd
On 16-05-06 11:29 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 11:05 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>
>> Technical elitism tends give a 'you're not good enough / you don't think
>> like us, go away' feel to a community. The 'we won't even
Hi all,
I have noticed that some of the policies of this project are already
veering towards a brand of technical elitism that I feel is completely
contrary to the stated goal of having a stronger community.
A strong community welcomes 'outsiders' and noobs and helps them find
their place in the
Hi all,
I know other community members of complained about the lack of
information about the reasons for the fork (they and I don't think
LEDE's official announcement really provides enough information to
really understand the situation) and I especially do badly in a vacuum -
I tend to strain to
Might I submit that my impression is that Kaloz (at least) holds
infrastructure hostage to maintain control, and that the fundamental
problem here is that OpenWrt is *not* democratic and ignores what people
who were ones visibly working on openwrt want and overrides their wishes
because he/they has
I think David Lang makes a lot of sense; it took years to reach this
point, better to carry on independently, but working together as much as
can be managed, and let time both settle the dust and demonstrate which
ideas really pan out.
Add to this that with years of toxic arguments (as acknowledge
Hi,
The post of the patch for rebranding is stuck waiting for admin approval
because it's >40 KB (it's a little larger than 90 KB). I think 40 KB is
a pretty low limit for a list which accepts patches and bug reports
(including relevant data).
Regards,
Daniel
__
On 16-05-05 07:13 PM, Ted Hess wrote:
> Ha! As a veteran top-poster and victim of Windows Live Mail when I
> respond sometimes, I take exception to your statement below. Of course,
Heh, I forgot about that (although Live Mail? They still have that?).
I hate having to Outlook for the same reason
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:29:47 -0700
From: Bill
To: Daniel Curran-Dickinson
Daniel-
No, of course not - please do.
I assumed, at least for the moment, the folks on LEDE are reading
Sorry for the duplicates.
I set up a new email identity for the LEDE list but Thunderbird doesn't
always pick the right one, so mail gets 'waiting for approval', which I
normally try to cancel and send from the right email address.
Regards,
Daniel
___
On 16-05-05 01:57 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>> Basically one builds a minimal SDK and does kind of like Debian where a
>> git commit to a package kicks of a build of pristine environment which
>> builds only the package and it's dependencies.
>
> I've set up a two-phase buildbot i
On 16-05-05 01:57 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>> Basically one builds a minimal SDK and does kind of like Debian where a
>> git commit to a package kicks of a build of pristine environment which
>> builds only the package and it's dependencies.
>
> I've set up a two-phase buildbot i
If you're interested, I can send you examples of a full rebrand patchset
(there are *quite* a few places to change, and this patchset doesn't get
them all) which I used in a "Don't blame OpenWrt" patchset I created
when I forked (although never publicly announced as wasn't entirely
convinced of the
On 16-05-05 01:37 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 13:23 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> Basically the only people for whom your claim "it's easy to add" is
>> actually true is people for whom it's not *that* much harder to
>> remo
Hey, in future could you please not top-post? It's bad form on a
technical list. While I'd hate see this become one of those
self-righteous snob communities that use rude and antagonistic in
response to things like top-posting, letting people know that that
top-post is inappropriate is something
On 16-05-05 01:17 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Again, just personal anecdotal data. But again, it's a down-side that
> it's fairly hard for recipients to *avoid* (it's distinctly non-trivial
> to remove even the one list-noise, let alone when it's cross-posted and
> gains others), while it's relat
On 16-05-05 11:23 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Quick question to those who don't like the idea of having a prefix in
> the subject: Is this a big deal ?
> Cannot this be compromised in favour of having this enabled for those
> who need it for the reasons justified in previous messages ?
For me t
Hey,
Could you let Felix know I wanted to apologize to him for getting upset
previously on the openwrt list, because of situations he is obviously
also frustrated with?
I can't reach him because n...@openwrt.org bounces and I don't have a
record of his other addresses.
Regards,
Daniel
On 16-05-04 08:38 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wanted to know if there is any appetite for an idea I've been kicking
>> around in my head for a while for package builds.
>>
>> Basically one bu
Hi,
I wanted to know if there is any appetite for an idea I've been kicking
around in my head for a while for package builds.
Basically one builds a minimal SDK and does kind of like Debian where a
git commit to a package kicks of a build of pristine environment which
builds only the package and
Sorry if this hits the list twice, I sent from the wrong email and got
bounced.
On 16-05-04 06:05 PM, Bob Call wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 21:19 +0100, tapper wrote:
>> On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:
>>>
>>
[snip]
>
> I'm kind of split on this issue because I run a faltering OpenWRT fork,
> f
Hi all,
A personal aside; I seem to be doing better so hopefully I can be a
positive factor in this project.
Anyway, I read the rules and have one suggestion:
There is no mechanism for removing problematic committers.
Problematic can mean one person who makes the project miserable for the
rest
94 matches
Mail list logo
