Alan, I think that some honest discussion may be necessary regarding
rules propositions that are blocked only with your -1 vote and quite
against the discussion on breaking changes, thus allowing breaking
code to be freely merged with the upstream, with no breaking changes
handling process, and by
Hi Tomek,
My vote -1 was because the breaking text was saying that the author of
commit needs to test it and many (all?) arch and boards supported by NuttX.
This transfers the responsibility of NuttX QA from the project organization
to the end developer, that is unfair. We as project responsible
Alin, but this is not an enforced rule of Linux, see:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/35fa2d88ca9481e5caf533d58b99ca259c63b2fe
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/6a774228e890ee04a0ee13f4e6e731ec8554b9c2
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d0caf9876a1c9f844307effb598ad1312d9e002
Hi all,
I was always looking at the kernel.org is a good development practice since
it has a huge community and it has been around for some time
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/Documentation/bpf?h=v6.14-rc5
if we decide that it is too hard to split commi
I also don't understand this practice of separating documentation from
code.
When changes in the code have to be reflected in the documentation, what's
the point of splitting it into separate commits? If, for example, I do a
`git revert`,
it may happen that the documentation and code are out of syn
Hi Alan,
development best practices ask for commits to be split in areas they touch
Related to that PR: Documentation in not software and does not belong to
code changes in arch
I think that this rule should be enforced even if we don't do LTS releases
for now but we will do them in the future.
Okay here goes the PR with Guidelines update based on our votes, in
draft mode for now, I tired to make it as human friendly as possible,
unclear points are marked "TODO", discussion is now open :-)
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15950
Thanks :-)
Tomek
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:39 PM Tome
Thank you Nathan, yes I will prepare Contribution Guidelines as
promised, I am extremely overloaded recently sorry for the delay!!
Tomek
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:04 PM Nathan Hartman wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A very *BIG* THANK YOU! to Tomek for driving this and doing the work
> of running the votes
Hi all,
A very *BIG* THANK YOU! to Tomek for driving this and doing the work
of running the votes and tallying the results!
Also THANK YOU to everyone who has participated so far in the
discussions and voting.
I guess the next steps will be to make any updates to the Contributing
Guidelines?
Th
Thank Alin, but in the ROUND 2 was written in *separated PR*
Yes, I think all commits should be separated into logic parts, depending on
which function is implemented.
For example, a new generic driver shouldn't include arch/ and boards/ files
in the same commit, but a fix that involved arch/, bo
Hi Alan,
just for clarification
Documentation should be part of the same PE but in a separate commit
Best regards
Alin
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025, 11:11 Alan C. Assis, wrote:
> Hi Tomek,
>
> Nice work! Kudos!
>
> About Documentation I voted +1 to have Documentation, but later I realized
> it was requ
Hi Tomek,
Nice work! Kudos!
About Documentation I voted +1 to have Documentation, but later I realized
it was required to be in a separate PR, which I don't agree with.
When I contributor submit a new feature that doesn't have Documentation I
ask them to include it to avoid creating hidden featu
Allright Ladies and Gentlemen, here goes the results :-)
ACCEPTED:
1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
2. PR and GIT COMMITS must adhere to Contributing Guidelines or rejected.
3. Git commit messages as important as PR description.
4. Proper description details requirements.
5. PR
Hi Tomek,
thanks for conducting the vote and expressing your feelings.
As always you point the obvious things and I hope that we will aim to
persuit standardisation and compatibility.
Have a nice weekend
Alin
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025, 08:00 Tomek CEDRO, wrote:
> My thoughts and comments that I did
My thoughts and comments that I did not want to put as part of the
results message:
It seems like this voting revealed two mindsets - one wants quick and
dirty experimental changes with low bar for acceptance that may be
streamed up from a single big organization that is probably paid for
the amou
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 1:45 AM Dmitri Shilov wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> > >
> > > > We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> > > > Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> > > > rules that s
S unclear how to vote. Reply to any reply? With different formatting
and (mis)quotes? So i will not quote and you can sort it out I hope!!
TimH: +1 to all - on the basis that if this doesn't work out quite right
it will be reviewed and changed. Best to try something like this than
not - it
Ladies and Gentlemen, 3h to voting close :-P
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >
> > 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> >
> > > We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> > > Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> > > rules that should filter out breaking code as much as possible also
> > > on o
Hi Tomek,
please ask people that voted on google forms to recast the vote.
We shouod not not bring votes from extern sources because those are not
archived
Best regards
Alin
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, 18:52 Tomek CEDRO, wrote:
> Thanks Alan, I will gather votes from google forms too and present
> ev
Thank Tomek, yes I think using the mailing list is better, to avoid a
single point of failure.
BR,
Alan
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 2:51 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Thanks Alan, I will gather votes from google forms too and present
> everything on the mailing list :-)
> We will use only mailing list f
Thanks Alan, I will gather votes from google forms too and present
everything on the mailing list :-)
We will use only mailing list for voting as Alin noted :-)
Tomek
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 3:46 PM Alan C. Assis wrote:
>
>
>
> Google forms confirmed that I voted on Fev 24, no idea why you didn
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 8:30 AM Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
>
>
> On 27/02/2025 13:53, Filipe Cavalcanti wrote:
>
> 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
>
> > We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> > Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementar
If you find the first answered form, please use it.
BR,
Alan
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:46 AM Alan C. Assis wrote:
> [image: image.png]
>
> Google forms confirmed that I voted on Fev 24, no idea why you didn't see
> it...
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:44 AM Alan C. Assis wrote:
>
>> Just d
[image: image.png]
Google forms confirmed that I voted on Fev 24, no idea why you didn't see
it...
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:44 AM Alan C. Assis wrote:
> Just did it again!
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:33 AM Alan C. Assis wrote:
>
>> Hi Tomek, it is strange, I voted in this second round, b
Just did it again!
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:33 AM Alan C. Assis wrote:
> Hi Tomek, it is strange, I voted in this second round, but my vote didn't
> show up.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 8:20 AM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>
>> Dear NuttX Community please vote! Tomorrow we are closing
Hi Tomek, it is strange, I voted in this second round, but my vote didn't
show up.
BR,
Alan
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 8:20 AM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Dear NuttX Community please vote! Tomorrow we are closing the vote and
> we have only 4 votes for now, in the previous round we had 12 votes,
> so vo
hink this is priority right now? We can tweak the guideline
later.
0 Filipe
-1 Sebastien NERVER EVER let untrusted and unverified code in without a review
even if the process is slowed down. If developer WANTS his code merged the
burden is on them to get other reviewers involved so merge bec
s (if
applicable).
> 3. After two weeks ask for the independent reviewer to merge if there
> are no other reviews. The independent reviewer is responsible for
> checking if the PR matches the *Lazy Consensus* conditions before
> merging it.
-1: Tomek (Considering we are leaving 2 rev
1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> rules that should filter out breaking code as much as possible also
on
> our side.
+1 Tomek
+1 Alin
+1 Tiago
+
Dear NuttX Community please vote! Tomorrow we are closing the vote and
we have only 4 votes for now, in the previous round we had 12 votes,
so vote vote :-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Hi,
Voting again (my previous e-mail was discarded in the voting process):
1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> rules that should filter out break
Hi,
Voting again (my previous e-mail was discarded in the voting process):
1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> rules that should filter out break
I am sorry for the confusion
Please fill in your answers to this email followed by the voter's name to
avoid future confusion
1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complement
I think we should each reply to the original vote email. If we reply
to someone else's vote, the votes will get all mixed up like that.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 9:26 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano
wrote:
>
> Hi Alin,
>
> It seems you mixed my answers and Tomek's together. Can you double-check,
> please?
Hi Alin,
It seems you mixed my answers and Tomek's together. Can you double-check,
please?
Some answers weren't answered by you (8, for instance).
Best regards,
Em seg., 24 de fev. de 2025 às 11:12, Alin Jerpelea
escreveu:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 2:26 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>
> > My respons
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 2:26 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> My responses below :-)
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 1:57 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> > 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> > We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> > Guidelines in order to provide checkl
Hi,
> 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> rules that should filter out breaking code as much as possible also on
> our side.
+1
> 2. PR and GIT
My responses below :-)
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 1:57 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> 1. Contributing Guidelines with hints for Reviewers.
> We are adding additional section for Reviewers to Contributing
> Guidelines in order to provide checklist and complementary set of
> rules that should filter out brea
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 3:45 AM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Hello world :-)
> After the first voting, discussions, and updates, here goes the Round
> 2 of the voting for NuttX Contributing Guidelines update:
> https://forms.gle/m3uRDGuE3QZy2yNn6
> There are again all rule propositions numbered from 1 to
round 1)
Best regards
Alin
Från: Tiago Medicci Serrano
Skickat: den 24 februari 2025 12:51
Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Ämne: Re: [VOTE] ROUND2 NuttX Contributing Guidelines update 202502.
Voted! Please vote. This is valid for the overall NuttX community (not only
Voted!
Please vote. This is valid for the overall NuttX community (not only PMCs
or committers).
Em sex., 21 de fev. de 2025 às 23:45, Tomek CEDRO
escreveu:
> Hello world :-)
>
> After the first voting, discussions, and updates, here goes the Round
> 2 of the voting for NuttX Contributing Guide
Hello world :-)
After the first voting, discussions, and updates, here goes the Round
2 of the voting for NuttX Contributing Guidelines update:
https://forms.gle/m3uRDGuE3QZy2yNn6
There are again all rule propositions numbered from 1 to 19 with
optional text fields if you feel texting can be fix
43 matches
Mail list logo
