On 12/25/2019 5:58 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
I think the idea has been nix'ed by Justin. So I am not going to pursue this.
Others may want to buck the system, but I have already caused enough problems.
How so? We already have a seperate comm...@nuttx.apache.org list which is
working fine from what I can see.
I don't see the relevance of comm...@nuttx.apache.org. It has nothing
do with the issue that is being addressed for the end user.
The issue for users who just want to ask for help. For example, "I am
using and STM32Fxxx-Foobar board. I enable I2C3 and I get this error
when trying to communicate with my GPS modem. Please help me?" And a
response might be something like, "Oh, I think you need to enable
CONFIG_FOOBAR_I2C3_FIXME=y. Please try that and let me know if that
solves your problem."
That is lost in the 100's of emails on dev and I see no connect with
com...@apache.org. Things are IDLE there now because there is workflow
requirment document in place and because of the holiday. But when
things get functional again, if ever, there will be hundreds of messages
there to. None of them related to "How I solve my STM32Fxxx-Foobar
problem?"
Basic we are making the decision to screw the end user in favor of rules
and process. I concede that and will not bring it up again.
Greg
