[LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 19:00, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
>>> When I decided where to port my contribution I considered the "focus 
>>> on stability and functionality" more interesting than the "bleeding 
>>> edge functionality", therefore I selected LEDE.
>>> Now I understand that a merge is ongoing.
>>> Can I ask to the people taking care about the merge how the 
>>> trade-off between stability and bleeding edge is solved?
>>
>> we did propose this as an idea, keep lede as the bleeding edge tree 
>> and
> use
>> openwrt as the stable release tree with long term support. the openwrt
> folks
>> made it a condition for the merger that this may not be the case. i 
>> think
> the
>> sentence used by the owrt folks was "merge to one project/tree or dont 
>> merge"
> 
> This sentence doesn't sound very constructive. Anyhow:

sorry if you feel that way, i am trying to be constructive and inclusive
to the best of my ability. just because i am nosy, why do you think this
is not constructive ?

> I'm sure that the owrt folks have good reason to merge, It is a question of
> transparencies, can they share with us these reasons?
> And most important, what are they proposing to trade-off between stability
> and bleeding edge?
> 
> In my opinion a conflict unsolved is simple an unsolved conflict. 
> If the merge means restore the status before the split, the probability to
> have a new split is high.
>  

indeed, this is the case. either we do find a consensus or the merge is
at the risk of resulting in the old ways. the reboot happened in order
for us to be able to have a fresh start, going back to the old way of
doing things certainly needs to be prevented as we know where the old
way of doing things has lead and will most likely lead again in the mid
term.

> Therefore in absence of valid proposal  to trade-off, my advice is to
> identify the perimeter where really make sense to merge and on the top of
> this common base built two different project, one focused on the "stability"
> and the second on the "bleeding edge".
> 

yes, that would need to be discussed and resolved, which is why we have
had several chat already. resolving the issues is most certainly at the
core of what we are trying to achieve,

>>> At the end the market share will answer if a single product make 
>>> sense or not.
> 
> Anyhow on this point I hope that the discussion can be transparent and
> extended to the community.
> 

transparency has a high value to us and is core to what we are trying to
achieve with the new LEDE rules. i think our track record so far proves
that we do mean this very serious. this is why it was very important to
us to publish the meeting protocols, allowing everyone to have an
insight to what is going on.

	John