I still insist on my opinion that compatibility with popular operating systems is the best choice
The issues we are discussing now are limited to the premise of not breaking existing products, but your decision has broken all future programs that want to compatible NuttX but these programs have good compatibility with linux/openbsd/freebsd NuttX is a future-oriented operating system. Try to imagine that in the future, people will continue to spend more energy to debug their own programs because of crc16 problems. Isn’t that unreasonable? NuttX is still on the path of continuous progress. It is not a dead project. It is terrible to give up future evolution in order to be compatible with the applications of the previous 7 years. Think about your children and friends’ experience with NuttX. BRs, Lwazi Dube <lwa...@gmail.com> 于2025年4月8日周二 07:01写道： > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 18:21, Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > -1 from me also, but please read further: > > > > I would vote +1 if there is a Kconfig to select crc16 type, and > > current (backwards-compatible) type is default. This way, existing > > applications will not break suddenly, but developers who need > > different CRC can choose it from Kconfig. > > > > Does any code borrowed from Linux/Free/OpenBSD count? That code is already > broken by default. That is why he is asking to change the default. The > resulting 2 broken NuttX apps are just collateral damage /s. >
