The forked from OpenWRT in May 2016 and are now already going back. I guess there's not much to gain from the code merge for end users except for a few bug fixes ( https://lede-project.org/faq#were_there_any_technical_reason... ).
[deleted]
OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
11–20 of 37 posts
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#12The forked from OpenWRT in May 2016 and are now already going back. I guess there's not much to gain from the code merge for end users except for a few bug fixes ( https://lede-project.org/faq#were_there_any_technical_reason... ).
My Uncle Brayden just got a new cream Chevrolet Camaro Convertible by working part time off of a macbook air... HERE ►ＷＷＷ.ebiz3.ＣＯＭ
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#13The forked from OpenWRT in May 2016 and are now already going back. I guess there's not much to gain from the code merge for end users except for a few bug fixes ( https://lede-project.org/faq#were_there_any_technical_reason... ).
Well, technically you might be right, but I would like to point out that two groups joining their efforts, while picking the best of both (organizational) worlds (processes, infrastructure, etc.) is always a good thing in the open-source world and means progress could be accelerated for the new, unified project.
Politically this could mean that either OpenWRT has moved and intends to improve regarding the issues that lead to the fork, or that the fork wants to return home either way.
I suppose at least both groups think their time is better spent together instead of separate, and I personally like these news way more than those of yet another fork...
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#14The forked from OpenWRT in May 2016 and are now already going back. I guess there's not much to gain from the code merge for end users except for a few bug fixes ( https://lede-project.org/faq#were_there_any_technical_reason... ).
Avoiding an ongoing fork shows a great deal of maturity. Way better than merging a fork that's 5 years out.
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#15The submission title "OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge" doesn't match the post which is titled "Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE" and specifically says: > It is still not decided that both project will finally merge
[deleted]
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#16This is awesome! So this is some of the important stuff:
1. Use the LEDE codebase, rather than OpenWrt's (undecided but likely). They'll first push any new changes in OpenWrt since the fork into LEDE, and then rebrand move completely to LEDE's codebase.
2.Will be using OpenWrt's name, not the name 'LEDE' anymore.
3. The workflow is still being discussed. The workflow of both LEDE and Openwrt will be learnt from to come up with the new one. Github will be used for issues, not PRs.
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#17LEDE folks have started to dump their patches on kernel mailing lists, but they don't seem to be mainline-able as is and the submitter is loathe to rework them:
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#18LEDE folks have started to dump their patches on kernel mailing lists, but they don't seem to be mainline-able as is and the submitter is loathe to rework them: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148230680302480&w=2
The majority of OpenWRT/LEDE patches are gross hacks that need a major rework or a completely different approach.
This is not the first patch of that kind.
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#19best news for Christmas!
Re: OpenWrt and LEDE to re-merge
#20LEDE folks have started to dump their patches on kernel mailing lists, but they don't seem to be mainline-able as is and the submitter is loathe to rework them: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148230680302480&w=2
Perhaps there is more context, but from a narrow read: the linked email states a need, contains a patch that solves the problem, and offers to solve it another way if needed... that seems pretty mature?
The text literally says:
> I am not sure if this is the best way to remove the quirks from the build. Let me know if you prefer a different way of solving this.