Responses to @tmo26 before I go to bed...
- Yes, we're amateurs, but we can still come to conclusions about what "supported" means, in particular with regard to newcomers.
- My belief: "Supported" means that someone can install the image and expect it to work as well as or better than the stock firmware. (Otherwise, what's the point?)
- I would argue that, contrary to @danitool, "supported" means that *both* wifi and adsl work. (Consider the contrary... "Oh, I just spent an hour reading wiki pages, locating the right image, installing the software, and the wifi doesn't work? What kind of @#$%^ software is this?")
- Changing the topic a bit: My goal for this ToH effort is that it become self-sustaining. That is, once we're done with the new dataentry pages and the new ToH, I would like to give the entire ToH team the luxury of walking away and/or focussing our attention elsewhere and have the ToH and detail pages continue to operate as we have designed it.
- For example, the only required input should be people updating the dataentry and details page for routers they know about. When CC becomes stable, many people (developers and people who own the particular brand/model, and specifically *not* members of the ToH team), would update the dataentry/detail pages with info about how CC works on their own router.
- After CC becomes final, I would be OK with a situation where many of the dataentry/detail pages never get updated beyond BB. This is another indication of the "level of support" for that particular router. If nobody gets around to trying CC on that model (or nobody gets around to updating the wiki), then I see no value to sending newcomers to that equipment. There are plenty of good and reasonably-priced routers that *are* supported. *We* should not spend hours of time figuring out how to help some unknown person save $20 on their router.
- Consequently, we can be selective about the information we retain/display. There are three categories of people:
1) Newcomers, who care about the "stable" release for their router. We should make that our focus, so that anyone trying it is highly likely to succeed.
2) A small fraction of people (developers, people who hunger for the newest stuff) care about trying out the latest from trunk.
3) A vanishingly small fraction of site visitors are looking for historical information on AA or earlier versions for routers that have current support. We should retain the info that exists, but shouldn't spend a great deal of time linking to those older (obsolete, buggy, ugly) builds.
- The proposed framework works well for #1
- Given that #2 above (people interested in trunk builds) is a small number, perhaps there's a way to think of "trunk" as a kind of "WIP". Maybe the Comments could say, "Testing in Trunk (DD) - check the Forum at ..."
- For #3, we can send them to the download pages that list all images for all architectures. (NB the dataentry and details pages will always have info on the most recent *supported* OpenWrt builds. If the current build is AA, then that's fine...)
(Last edited by richbhanover on 16 Jun 2015, 06:52)