News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Introducing the LEDE project – A reboot of the OpenWrt co... by ricardobeat on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @04:32AM (#11627004)
What about the reasons stated in the post?

    Number of active core developers at an all time low, no process for getting more new people involved.

    Unreliable infrastructure, fixes prevented by internal disagreements and single points of failure.

    Lack of communication, transparency and coordination in the OpenWrt project, both inside the core team and between the core team and the rest of the community.

    Not enough people with commit access to handle the incoming flow of patches, too little attention to testing and regular builds.

    Lack of focus on stability and documentation.
Re:Introducing the LEDE project – A reboot of the OpenWrt co... by yk on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @04:45AM (#11627051)
All of these are made worse by a fork.

[Edit:] Since I am getting downvoted let me get through their stated reasons:

    Number of active core developers at an all time low, 
    no process for getting more new people involved.
A fork is cutting the number of available devs in half and creates uncertainty for new people. So it should hurt in the short term.

    Unreliable infrastructure, fixes prevented by
    internal disagreements and single points of failure.
Then fix the infrastructure. ( If the fixes are actually prevented by internal disagreement, this may be a argument for a fork.)

    Lack of communication, transparency and coordination 
    in the OpenWrt project, both inside the core team 
    and between the core team and the rest of the 
    community.
This may or may not be improved by a fork. It is certainly easier to manage a community half the size and a fork may be a fresh start, but it seems a better idea to try to improve their process.

    Not enough people with commit access to handle
    the incoming flow of patches, too little 
    attention to testing and regular builds.
Not enough people, so we are splitting the team.

    Lack of focus on stability and documentation.
To some extend documentation and testing profit from enough available manpower.

Apart from the "internal disagreement" argument all of these arguments may be pain points but are not really arguments for forking the project, some are orthogonal some are actually arguments against a fork. So I wish them the best, but from the outside this fork does not look promising.

Re:Introducing the LEDE project – A reboot of the OpenWrt co... by easp on Thursday May 05, 2016 @04:38AM (#11634680)
Your analysis seems predicated on your own ignorance of the OpenWRT project, and human nature.

How many system-level developers do you know who'd throw themselves into creating a new project, hashing out the governance, etc unless the alternative was even worse? I know, roughly, none.

I'm an OpenWRT user, not a developer, and it seemed pretty clear, even from that distance, that there was something broken given the way infrastructure problems were (or weren't) dealt with earlier this year.

I recognize many of the developers committed to the new project, and my understanding from others is that the new project includes many of the most active OpenWRT developers.

Clearly it would be better if they didn't feel this fork was necessary, but for now, I think this fork is promising.

Re:Introducing the LEDE project – A reboot of the OpenWrt co... by supercheetah on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @11:30AM (#11629041)
The egcs fork from gcc was the only thing that finally gave the gcc devs the kick in the butt they needed to start making much needed changes, and then things eventually got merged. Maybe it will happen with OpenWRT/LEDE too.