On 11/2/2017 1:44 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
I agree, that there were no warning signs on the public mailing list.
As I said before, all history now; discussing it further serves no purpose.
- Mike
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.or
Mike Baker wrote on 02.11.2017 16:59:
On 11/1/2017 5:18 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
This raises some more questions: which terms and conditions did people
have
to approve to get an @openwrt.org address? Where can these terms and
conditions be found? Is every email sent from such an address suppos
On 11/1/2017 5:18 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
This raises some more questions: which terms and conditions did people
have
to approve to get an @openwrt.org address? Where can these terms and
conditions be found? Is every email sent from such an address supposed to
be discussed and approved by the
Mike Baker wrote on 31.10.2017 04:46:
On 10/28/2017 4:52 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote on 28.10.2017 23:20:
Hi all,
Does it seem to anyone else that we’re making this more complicated
than it needs to be?
If one of the goals we’re going for from here on out is “equality”
On 10/28/2017 4:52 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote on 28.10.2017 23:20:
Hi all,
Does it seem to anyone else that we’re making this more complicated
than it needs to be?
If one of the goals we’re going for from here on out is “equality”,
then a basic litmus test to be app
On 28 October 2017 at 03:54, Florian Fainelli wrote:
...
>
> Quite frankly, if the goal is just to give Zoltan and Imre a hard time
> and nitpick on everything possible just to delay (purposely or not) the
> remerge, then you are doing a great job at it, but this goes against
> rule #12.
>
No,
On 27 October 2017 at 00:32, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 2017-10-26 18:16, p...@oranjevos.nl wrote:
>
> Please, could you add some info on what has changed with the new version of
> the patch ?
> And, it would be appreciated when the SOB would not use an openwrt.org mail
> address (assumin
