I have spotted some errors in OpenWrt's packages'
Makefiles (mainly from the
packages feed, a few in the general repository, and mainly missing dependencies or missing
PKG_FIXUP=autoreconf), which I feel now proficient enough to fix. I also now learnt how to do pull requests in git, although I think I still might do things wrong.
I am happy to contribute, and I have contributed Patches in the issue tracker at github. However, most of the time they don't get picked up or commented. Seems to me that maintainers are not reacting.
So it seems like the only way to get the fix applied is either to persuade someone else personally to check-in the fix, or submit a pull request by myself.
Regarding the latter: I would do it, but OpenWrt's contribution policy requires to provide my real name. I am not OK with providing my real name.
Do you see any way I could contribute the fix myself without the need to disclose my real name publicly?
I might get into hot water for this but: Use a pseudonymous alter ego? It's not like anyone would be requesting identification papers.
thanks for the answer.
Yes, I know I could, was also within my thought.
I think that OpenWrt has this policy for some reason, so I find it disrespectful to just circumvent it.
It is even written in bold text
so for me it really seems to be a strict rule.
If anyone can explain me the reason (I am also generally interested in the reason, by the way), I might have a basis to judge for myself if I find it acceptable to circumvent it by using a pseudonym.
Furthermore, I somehow feel some "I don't really want to contribute stuff that fixes problems with 'your' software, if 'you' require from me this and that. It's a service for 'you', since it fixes errors on 'your' side, and it is not a service for 'me' by introducing features I would like to see" (put as "'you'" the "group that is maintaining OpenWrt"), which also explains my reluctance to actively finding ways to circumvent the rule.
I suspect it has to do with patches generally having to be upstreamable, following the upstream rules. Some upstreams require real names on patches, expressedly with no pseudonyms allowed.
You could ask on the OpenWrt devel mailing list how to proceed in this case.
While you are at it, you could also ask about the patches you have submitted.
OK, here is the forum, it has a "developers" category.
Then there is the devel mailing list.
Which one is for which purpose? I thought, here in the forum is the place to get into contact with people active in OpenWrt development and steering the OpenWrt project, and the devel mailinglist is for internal talk amongst active devekopers only. I am a bit confused.
I might ask there, thanks for the information!
What is the email frequency (emails/day) on that list?
The forum is very informal, mostly user-facing conversation but also for developers to coordinate if they choose to do so.
The devel list is mostly used for formal discussions and patch submission.
Although most devs (i.e., maintainers of OpenWrt) are on the forum (although to varying degrees of frequency), some of the devs are not. Patches and submissions happen exclusively on the devel list (and to some degree on github, which is an "outpost" but not the main repository).
Judge for yourself.
Thanks for the explanations, @takimata!
Interesting/ strange, that the "outpost" is the place where issues should be submitted to … (and then, seems like more often be true than false, no one cares about, I recently reported a target specific
kmod-* package from the Linux kernel package that in recent kernels builds empty, no response, and if I have made mistakes while reporting, even no response in letting me know this ...)
Thanks for providing the URL to the list's archive!