From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA22321F730; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle-7.home.lan ([217.237.70.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6jIK-1YpoeG1vOe-00wRTf; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:16:04 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <559D87E4.8010600@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 00:16:00 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <559B2513.3020909@isi.edu> <559B53E8.90201@isi.edu> <8CBE744B-CE0D-4C44-A4B1-C7FB27403E1D@gmail.com> <20150707181911.7759D208@taggart.lackof.org> <559D6DD7.9020806@isi.edu> <8F877E8A-6DD2-4318-B690-DF7395394037@gmx.de> <559D87E4.8010600@isi.edu> To: Joe Touch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Lhxapg3VRvzrziDjKcVNG8NJh8bg4CrXZd6GfnEwY0XZ1uCKxs3 mispGawFcMCweXQZkOv3HgGpDrsqgqxQA01+tplPKEQdSAa4HF6mQ2XuLgLSo/YjNJw2tT0 fqrI9J26HBl096N/fQuHC7OFNCFIVeWUNvCx7AtIfZENvypWTizUMZEekI83k9D1DFTxc2N UbNxEizS6LaDyKmYVYWMA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:KD1i6EriTrE=:iI0xBqz4gE1eBWD9UF9BQN KoDjisfYmHkkM/TUkkVd1u0f/CYk4UcCKhs2qdIwsO0/WIHqC9AUYJTcSPIyCoaaIvIz6vH9x k78tJVsChOJCHVd2W56sJHbGUqweOyNLuoMbS+ntEoL1B9ReOS44UKfNxgfcWzLh/Wklpn3bs 9Fa7T0ZlCM2B+5+gE3plpr88P3PaqZAEkmOCZKOvuCIqJjvXWf9JIrQHeUACJtmTyo73R+jft GhbaJXamVJvgzNNjDVO/1FqvrsKhk5eEPCL0DJHwmvmaa+DUb2VGALW6Rlb+wvQY6TFqm/3BL CUoOupcNgsitjmm5pZSMr5LKvinN3uNED6KJkkitB4psIA+6/A1BFWFt5ttY5INej9bQ+6mid ZD+0C+mUW6KsGM3V49WeDmSvP3/d5seGfb9zQm8BsXjCXNxs3AkEENhmZ8SdILsRujvy3pMfy DcU+jWKUNfjTiMdAvZQ6ZIVEfucOXMvnrCry+aeMF9JZVRlxTqrUJMwey4AZEdAdQ+YIWXyiE 6Vt9i7Ju9hVxZVA4BvzBE0tTzgf906gYS9Bh5qhmQMAZ5wLDCrV2RfAI/HnIgF1meQL8OYhWK neDKPJm9s8vZ2jAVZI1OyQ3ymd8oH19IlyFSGzOXd9zZu+uHj/d46bE8qnBcFCHp4blRApfYx 1wfJGJKhOccRK8QUiI6GEemXKB7O4QpPo2mGRUa6LSDeyEIty+gq8Uz9TrIgjXh8QBjg= Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] failing to find the "declared victory" in a current wifi router X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:16:54 -0000 Hi Joe, On Jul 8, 2015, at 22:28 , Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, Sebastian, >=20 > On 7/8/2015 1:15 PM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> Hi Joe, >>=20 >> On Jul 8, 2015, at 20:37 , Joe Touch wrote: > ... >>> The other step, IMO, would be two flags in the OpenWRT list of = hardware: >>>=20 >>> - a flag/color that indicates that the most recent hardware rev >>> supports BB >>>=20 >>> - a different flag/color that indicates that the most recent >>> hardware rev supports CC >>=20 >> If you look at http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start you should have >> noticed two columns: version and status: status was/is supposed from >> which version openwrt supports that specific router version is >> supposed to tell which versions of said router actually fall under >> the supported status. >=20 > The information isn't clear: >=20 > - does this indicate the openwrt version that first supported > the hardware? or the specific version that is required? Actually both; I assume it to be the openwrt revision under = which the device worked initially. Hopefully this also means that = revision or newer, but unless its popular hardware it might not be = tested at all with more recent revisions and hence might have regressed = back into non-working territory. >=20 > - for devices with multiple versions, this doesn't > indicate whether the most recent version is supported or > if the information refers to legacy versions Unless you come up with a sure fire way to figure out the =93most = recent version=94 this line of argument is leading nowhere, fast ;) But = if you follow the link that does doubly duty as the model name in the = wiki you end up on the model specific web site that often gives exactly = the information you here require, which hardware revision started = working with which openwrt revision. Then again often enough even the = detailed version stays silent on this topic. A subtle call to action for = user=92s of that device ;) >=20 >> Granted, status are not filled for all routers and sometimes with the >> unfortunate label =93trunk=94 without stating a date or release = number, >> but these seem to be the minority. Version seems to be in worse shape >> with lots of =93-=93 and =93?=94. >=20 >> By the way, you keep repeating the phrase =93most recent hardware = rev.=94 >> as if there was a common repository somewhere on the web from which >> to deduce what the most recent incarnation of each specific router >> name/type is; as it stands this information is filled in by >> volunteers, based on what version they got from a store/vendor/OEM >> and their installation testing/development. I would love to learn if >> you have a better way of collecting that information preferably in an >> automated fashion? >=20 > Sorry; to be more clear, I'm only asking for a different way of seeing > the information already on the site. >=20 > E.g., the Linksys WNDR4300 indicates support for v1 under BB, but = that's > not the version that's now sold; when I click through to the device = page > I see the information that indicates that the most recent motherboard > version is not currently supported at all. Let me be pedantic, the most recent version documented in the = wiki, there might be a v3 out there somewhere and we just do not know = yet. >=20 > I.e., I would have found the table much more useful if it had = indicated: >=20 > device BB CC highest board rev/support > ------------------------------------------------- > WNDR4300 V1 no V2/no >=20 > The BB column would tell me whether BB works and on what revs (and = could > list more than one board rev); similarly for the CC column. And that is a loosing proposition on a wiki maintained by = volunteers; as you have indicated yourself the amount of time people are = willing to invest in something like a hardware wiki is pretty small, not = necessarily for occasional =93spring cleaning=94 like it is happening = now, but rather the small maintenance work of keep adding new revisions = once they are discovered. Also what about DD, and the most likely = following EE=85 the table gains columns quickly that way ;) >=20 > The last column above would tell me whether to bother trying to buy = this > device now. You assume that the retail channel only carries the most recent = version, do you? Which is unfortunately not true=85 >=20 > All this information could be derived by clicking on the many devices = in > the list; I'm suggesting a different organization that would be more > useful to those trying to get on board and join the project. I believe you will be quite happy once the changes to the ToH = wiki page that are currently in midair land on the wiki; as far as I can = see a lot of that reorganization is happening. If you want to contribute = your insight and expertise have a look at the following thread: = https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=3D56521 =85 >=20 >>> The current list is a confusing mix of information about very old, >>> sometimes EOL (end-of-life) equipment. >>=20 >> What is bad about keeping information? Just because a device is EOL=20= >> by its manufacturer/vendor does not necessarily mean it is completely >> out of the retail channel/ second hand retail/sharing channel, so >> keeping information how to give such devices a =93second life=94 as >> openwrt routers seems like a good idea to me. >=20 > Nothing is wrong with keeping the info; the issue is whether and when = to > push it to a separate page. Never? Just make the whole thing filterable, which I believe is = being prototyped as we speak ;) >=20 > Again, I do hope the feedback is useful. I have a hunch it would be even more useful if voiced in a way = the openwrt developers/documenters community could actually see your = ideas=85 (as far as I know Rich Brown is the only one here working on = improving the openwrt wiki (and I am really glad he is doing it as I = like his documentation a lot, but I digress)) Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > Joe