Adrian Schmutzler

Since this is about consistency, please note that the only consistency which is easily achievable is that between model name and device definition name/compatible. So, please don't just touch the...

To decide: routerboard-wap-g-5hact2hnd routerboard-wap-ac routerboard-750gr3 routerboard-hex (does hex already imply rev. 3 as it appears to me?) routerboard-760igs routerboard-hex-s routerboard-lhg-2nd routerboard-lhg-2 routerboard-921gs-5hpacd-15s routerboard-mantbox-15s routerboard-sxt-5ndr2 routerboard-sxt-lite5 Seems fine: routerboard-493g routerboard-922uags-5hpacd routerboard-m11g...

> Parts of the product code which do not matter for OpenWRT support (ie. device case, -RM) may be dropped. Color is easy, but how do we know what does...

> One cause for concern is whether MikroTik did (or will) change the hardware of a specific model without changing the marketing name (I'm in particular concerned about switches from...

> Which suggests that MikroTIk prefers RB over RouterBOARD (perhaps only for non bare PCB devices). ... at the moment.

Note that deviation of "friendly" model name from image name/compatible is not an option here. Having two separate names for the same device is just confusing (as we just experience...

I still lean towards the marketing names. We won't die from a mikrotik_sxt-lite2-rev2 and mikrotik_sxt-lite2-rev3, and it will still be easier to read than the technical name.

Like everything else, also the "spelling" of RB vs. RouterBOARD varies between the different "sources" of the device name. With the recent devices I merged, I decided to follow the...

@aparcar Well, I'd say we are at the same level of disagreement we have been all the time.

> I thought that's why we have the `ALT0` variables? Within the system we use all the code names and IDs and for `ALTn` we use whatever is pleasant for...