That is actually interesting. Anecdotally, here in Waterloo there is a significant Chinese community and so there are actually many apartment buildings which do not have a 13th floor due to the superstition. Of course, the 13th floor exists, but it is given a different number.
I would say I'm not strictly against using 14.0.0 or even 15.0.0 (I see 14 is also unlucky in the Suse link) instead for the release. I don't think any NuttX users have mentioned this issue on the 13.0.0 discussions before though. Matteo On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 10:09 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I think we can postpone branching the release 13.0.0 to include the > most important breaking changes on it (otherwise there is no need to > increase the release digit if there are not significant changes). > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:02 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > May I provide an alternative view: 13 is a lucky number for Italians :) > > > > In all seriousness, I do agree that March 1 might be a bit early for the > > 13.0.0 release. I know there are several other tasks on the issue tracker > > for it, so I don't want to push it along with my changes here > prematurely. > > I'm not sure if the time representation getting pushed from 32b to 64b > has > > been merged, but I also wanted to tackle the empty apps docs and the > > README.txt files for the big release. If we can bundle more breaking > > changes in time for 13.0.0 that is better, I think. I don't mind > > "maintaining" the init patch (since it's a moving target) as the other > > changes are getting ready; I don't think it would be too involved. > > > > I think releasing a 13.0.0 is fine anyways. I honestly don't think very > > many upstream patches from 12.x users are going to be affected. There > > really aren't many crazy breaking changes to be in 13.0.0 yet, most APIs > > are the same. I also agree that there is too much involved in having an > LTS > > or a separately maintained internal version. I would be in support of > > delaying the release for a longer testing period given the major version > > bump, but I don't think we should treat 13.0.0 too much differently from > a > > regular release. > > > > In terms of the actual change I'm making to the init, I think it is > quite a > > large benefit because it finally prevents all the NuttX boards from > relying > > on user space code (NSH/boardctl) to bring up the board. I encountered > this > > issue a few times myself when trying to make my own apps an entry point > for > > NuttX. It is definitely not the only thing that could be done for the > boot > > process, and I agree that we can also focus on documenting it better. > But, > > I don't think there is a reason to object to this change and it has been > > discussed/desired by the community for a long time. I'm happy to explain > > the change in more detail if my PR descriptions/the issue discussion > aren't > > clear enough! > > > > Question for Alin: what is the normal process for breaking changes in > > releases? I'm wondering if its possible to merge into mainline and just > > wait longer between the current version and 13.0.0 as other breaking > > changes catch up in development. That way mainline is the "draft 13.0.0" > > and doesn't need special maintenance. Of course, if this doesn't fit in > the > > usual release process, I am happy to maintain the patch branch until > things > > are ready! > > > > Best, > > Matteo > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026, 9:22 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No one serious will avoid NuttX because it's version 13. Let's be > > > serious, this > > > is a community of engineers, not stock market traders. Don't waste time > > > discussing superstitions, because it's starting to look like AI bots > > > discussion ;) > > > > > > czw., 19 lut 2026 o 15:12 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > > > > > But it will make it difficult to get their patches integrated into > the > > > > mainline, since 12.x to 13.x will have a big difference. > > > > > > > > NuttX 12.0.0 was released on 2023-01-16, more than 3 years ago, so I > > > > suppose if we follow the same logic, users that decided to use an old > > > > version could be using a version from more than 3 years ago. > > > > > > > > We already have many issues in the project to worry about, having > users > > > > avoiding using NuttX just because it has a 13.x release is something > I > > > > think we can skip, we can avoid! :-) > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:00 AM Alin Jerpelea <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > such separation will be hard to maintain and will produce confusion > > > > > > > > > > I think that it is better to have 13.xx.xx released on the normal > > cycle > > > > and > > > > > let users decide if they use the "stable 12.xx.xx releases" or the > > "new > > > > > 13.xx.xx" > > > > > I can add a Note to the release notes to clarify that 13.0.0 may > need > > > > some > > > > > releases to shine > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > Alin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 2:45 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I think LTS is not the way to go. > > > > > > > > > > > > But I agree with Tomek to keep version 13 as internal usage only, > > not > > > > for > > > > > > final users and companies. > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 10:28 AM Alin Jerpelea < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the resources available we can not start a LTS track > > > > > > > I propose that we continue using, for now, the same release > > > procedure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > Alin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 1:57 PM raiden00pl < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LTS was discussed on this list earlier, and the conclusion > was > > > that > > > > > the > > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > didn't have the resources to maintain LTS release. I don't > > think > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > changed since then in terms of resources available (or > should I > > > say > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > worse now?), > > > > > > > > so bringing LTS release idea into this discussion doesn't > make > > > much > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > czw., 19 lut 2026 o 13:44 Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could resemble FreeBSD organization to match > > progressive > > > > and > > > > > > > > > conservative crowd: > > > > > > > > > 1. CURRENT is the master experimental branch (i.e. > > 13-CURRENT). > > > > > > > > > 2. STABLE is well tested and not breaking branch (i.e. > > > > 12-STABLE). > > > > > > > > > 3. RELEASE is snapshot of STABLE in time marked with number > > > > branch > > > > > > > > > (i.e. 12.12-RELEASE). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When CURRENT gets mature it goes STABLE (branch), bumps > > number > > > > and > > > > > > > > > starts experimenting (branch) again. STABLE gets updates > and > > > > fixes > > > > > > > > > from CURRENT, but it also serves as source for RELEASE > > (branch) > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > time to time. If you need some fix from STABLE but you use > > > > RELEASE > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > can build it safely.. except release is also tied to some > > tools > > > > > > > > > packages etc. Stability here in terms of API. Plus "compat" > > > layer > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > provides cross-version ABI compatibility (i.e. 10.0 binary > > > works > > > > > fine > > > > > > > > > on 14.3). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.freebsd.org/releng/ > > > > > > > > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/freebsd-releng/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may sound fun but still a lot of maintenance work for a > > > small > > > > > > > > > team.. maybe too much.. or just some inspiration :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 1:17 PM Alan C. Assis < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a good idea! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The number 13 could be like a transition (passage) > version, > > > it > > > > > > could > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > considered a breaking version, before the final version > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this version we will have the chance to improve the > boot > > > > > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > > > and other things, i.e.: currently we have the common > boards > > > > that > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > drivers shared in the same chip family, but it is > possible > > to > > > > > > extend > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > idea to have these drivers working for all chips. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:07 AM Tomek CEDRO < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I also know some people in person that avoid 13 at > > all > > > > > cost > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > quite funny.. but for me 13 is kinda lucky even if in a > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > way.. we may consider 13 internal testing and then just > > go > > > > 14.. > > > > > > > > > > > whatever :D :D :D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:44 PM Alan C. Assis < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree! Also we need to decide whether to use the > > number > > > > 13 > > > > > or > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > skip > > > > > > > > > > > > it! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Historically it is proved that this number is not > good > > > > luck, > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > NASA > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to insist on it (what could go wrong, NASA has > > the > > > > > > smartest > > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > the planet), that resulted in a catastrophic event > that > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > ended > > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > with the life of 3 persons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, maybe I'll writing it as a joke, but imagine > > someone > > > > > > > > considering > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > NuttX, if they have any doubt they will not use NuttX > > 13 > > > > for > > > > > > > sure! > > > > > > > > > :-D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I vote for NuttX 14 :-D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 8:22 AM Tomek CEDRO < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not rush with the 13 and keep it for time > > when > > > > most > > > > > > > > > breaking > > > > > > > > > > > > > things are settled and we could call it first LTS > > > > release, > > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > > > stick to 12 and small improvements in minor > releases, > > > > but I > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > follow the community voice :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 7:23 AM Alin Jerpelea < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matteo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will fork the next release branch on 1st of > March > > > so > > > > > that > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > have 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > month > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to test the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose that we name this release 13.0.0 and we > > put > > > > all > > > > > > > > planned > > > > > > > > > > > > > breacking > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes in the new release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2026, 06:47 Matteo Golin, < > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have decided to work on tackling this issue: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/11321 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crux of it is: many boards rely on NSH to > > > > > initialize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peripherals/board-level systems. This is done > > > through > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > user-space > > > > > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to boardctl(BOARDIOC_INIT). However, > > > > > > BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same thing. This is confusing for many users > and > > > also > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > boards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > having out-of-sync init methods (i.e. late_init > > > does > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than app_init, but they shouldn't). To simplify > > the > > > > > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce user confusion, the suggestion was to > > > > completely > > > > > > > > remove > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BOARDIOC_INIT/board_app_initialize and > > NSH_ARCHINIT > > > > in > > > > > > > favour > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE. This is a massive > breaking > > > > > change > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to-do list for 13.0.0 but it hadn't been picked > > up > > > > yet > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > we're > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time for 13.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a draft PR open here to the kernel with > > most > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > boards > > > > > > > > > > > > > adhering > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the new changes: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18408 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here to the apps repo removing references > to > > > > > > > > BOARDIOC_INIT > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NSH_ARCHINIT: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3405 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These PRs are large, introduce breaking > changes, > > > and > > > > > > touch > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boards (not all of which I am able to test on > my > > > > > limited > > > > > > > > > hardware > > > > > > > > > > > > > set). I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would appreciate eyes on these PRs to see if > > there > > > > are > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > flaws > > > > > > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial approach and also in case anyone would > > like > > > > to > > > > > > > > > volunteer to > > > > > > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the changes on some hardware (I don't own > > anything > > > > with > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > STM32 > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CI is also going to report a lot of errors > > due > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > across both repositories (and they will be out > of > > > > sync > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the CI runs), hence the importance of testing > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback in advance (and maybe > > your > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > testing > > > > > > > > > > > if you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
