On 12/25/2019 6:22 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
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.
Per https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/, these incubator projects
all have a user or users email list:
ariatosca
cmda
daffodil
druid
flagon
gearpump
gobblin
heron
hivemail
iota
milagro
mrql
mxnet
openaz
pinot
ponymail
quickstep
ratis
s2graph
samoa
sirona
taverna
tuweni
weex
zipkin
That (I think) is most of the incubator projects. I don't understand
exactly why we are being discriminated against when this is common
practice for most other incubator projects.
Greg
