Hi all,
I was going to reply (or maybe I did reply in another thread?) but I don't
see it here now. Anyway I'm with you. Even though I would like to see LTS
releases (eventually), I agree that we need to get more organized first.
Improving our automated testing (on real hardware!) should definitel
Hi all,
I will close the vote early since there is a strong desire not to start the
LTS releases and I will restart the topic in the future
Bets regards
Alin
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:45 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:08 AM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> > This vote proposes to
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:08 AM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> This vote proposes to start the LTS releases for NuttX RTOS
> The proposed LTS release plan is
> - 1st release each year is a LTS release (maintained for 1.5 years)
> - 6 minor releases for each release
> ex: 13.0.0-13.0.6 for our first LTS r
Before we have a solid test suite to ensure the release achieves some
quality level, the release is just a snapshot of a developing code base
with a very basic verification(nsh+ostest), which quality is far from LTS.
So, I suggest to setup the olid verification suite and automation test farm
before
Hello,
Same, negative vote *in this state*.
The idea of LTS releases is extremely useful and important but I believe
it needs a little more organization and time.
Let's first implement everything that is being decided in the other vote
first.
Depolyable Automated Hardware testing is also v
Hi,
-1. Same arguments: we don't have enough staff to make it at the moment.
Let's focus on automated testing to lower staff workload when reviewing PRs.
Em qua., 26 de fev. de 2025 às 10:36, Alan C. Assis
escreveu:
> I like the LTS idea, but I need to vote -1 too!
>
> - We don't have enough s
I like the LTS idea, but I need to vote -1 too!
- We don't have enough staff to even review PRs, let alone create a new
burden to LTS support.
- The current LTS approach is forcing contributors to divide PRs in many
commits, although other projects with LTS are not requiring it.
- First we need to
: [Vote] NuttX LTS release
I was only skim reading the discussions on LTS, so probably missed detailed
descriptions/conclusion of the LTS proposal. It seems a great idea but
@raiden00pl makes a valid point I think? This is a vote for 13. 0. 0 which is
an LTS candidate I
I was only skim reading the
I was only skim reading the discussions on LTS, so probably missed
detailed descriptions/conclusion of the LTS proposal. It seems a great
idea but @raiden00pl makes a valid point I think?
This is a vote for 13.0.0 which is an LTS candidate I would imagine.
Once out in the wild, any fixes (not
> we only need separate commits not PR which is a best practice and improves
readability
Lately I've been seeing something completely different on Github...
Separate commits are OK, separate PRs are not.
> We can provide fixes and improve the LTS releases compardd with the
regular
releases which
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, 10:32 raiden00pl, wrote:
> -1 from me.
>
> 1. It's a waste of already limited resources in this project.
>
> 2. It makes life harder for contributors, by for example requiring
> separation of PRs on arch/boards/doc. Extra work for contributors to
> compensate for the project'
-1 from me.
1. It's a waste of already limited resources in this project.
2. It makes life harder for contributors, by for example requiring
separation of PRs on arch/boards/doc. Extra work for contributors to
compensate for the project's limited resources is not okay.
3. Regarding the above poi
12 matches
Mail list logo
