Re: Apache NuttX website

+1 Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > Op 21 dec. 2019 om 08:27 heeft David Sidrane het > volgende geschreven: > > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:54 PM > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org > Subject: Re: Apache

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

You would like te see some REQuirements would be addressed by some DevOps thoughts.. but C/C++ are still challenging here. And then the principle: automate where you can! ( https://www.google.nl/amp/s/devops.com/devops-challenges-c-c-projects/amp/) Also one would like that the code to be teste

Re: Away for two weeks

Hi, > There are several other mentors (3) who can help, so there's need for concern What I mean to say is “There is NO need for concern”, sorry about that. Thanks, Justin

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Hi Brennan, I agree with your reasoning and welcome the change, but let me expand on the initial reasoning. below. On 2019/12/21 07:56:35, Brennan Ashton wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 11:22 PM David Sidrane wrote: > > > All, > > > > Please help flesh this out. > > > > Proposed Workflow Requ

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Hi, > Also one would like that the code to be tested (also hacktesting) through > something like SonarCube. Apache provides SonarCube support for projects Thanks, Justin

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

We can still use GitHub functionality for handling merges etc.. at the end of the day my understanding is the code just has to end up in the repos and synced to Apache's severs. Not asking to add anything to the proposal just STRIKE REQ3.1 On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 12:47 AM David Sidrane wrote: >

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Hi, > The purpose was accommodating the "repos must be on the ASF infrastructure > edict"[1] . > Which I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, is pure git??? Most(?) use git, some also use svn, there might be a couple that still use cvs. Use of GitHub is not a requirement, but may be conve

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 12:40 AM Disruptive Solutions < disruptivesolution...@gmail.com> wrote: > You would like te see some REQuirements would be addressed by some DevOps > thoughts.. but C/C++ are still challenging here. And then the principle: > automate where you can! > > ( > https://www.google

Re: Away for two weeks

Have a nice Holiday Justin. I'm also travelling today to my hometown, but will return Dec. 26. Merry Xmas! BR, Alan On Saturday, December 21, 2019, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> There are several other mentors (3) who can help, so there's need for concern > > What I mean to say is “There is

Re: Transferring Repositoies (Was Re: Masayuki Ishikawa added to NuttX committers)

On 2019/12/20 21:09:18, Gregory Nutt wrote: > [This conversation belongs on the dev list] > > > Which way is the mirrors? > > > > I believe I read somewhere, it's apache --> github. But I could be wrong. > > I recall Duo saying that you can set this up either way. > > > PMC I would l

RE: Testing the new repository

-Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:02 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Testing the new repository >> We you can see the new repository is working fine. >> >> I submitted the i2C driver for STM32G070/NUCLEO-G070RB th

Re: Testing the new repository

Hi all, I would suggest that we still follow the original process before the new workflow is ready which mean that: 1.We post the patch to dev@nuttx.apache.org or 2.Send the pull request to https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx 3.Only Greg can commit the patch to apache/github repo I am seeing

Re: Testing the new repository

+1 And the patch is the same format and put on this mail address just like when we were in the Google Group? Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > Op 21 dec. 2019 om 12:30 heeft Xiang Xiao het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi all, > I would suggest that we still follow the original process before th

[GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] davids5 opened a new pull request #1: imxrt fixes

davids5 opened a new pull request #1: imxrt fixes URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1 In bringing up the NXP RDDRONE-FMURT6 these issues were discovered and fixed. - False detection - No Detection I2C - System lock up hang due to interrupt storm Pr

[PATCH] imxrt fixes FW: [apache/incubator-nuttx] imxrt fixes (#1)

PATCH is here https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1.patch PR is here https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1 *From:* David Sidrane [mailto:notificati...@github.com] *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2019 3:42 AM *To:* apache/incubator-nuttx *Cc:*

Re: Testing the new repository

Opps That would be me. I am sorry I just saw this when I was sending the PR and the URL of the patch to the list. I am happy to delete the branch and the PR if you like or we can use it to explore our new environment just let me know. (Or any PPMC can deleted it or push the merge button (choose

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

David, Brennan, Thanks for starting this David, I think you are the only person that could have gotten us out of the run we are in. We need to get this into a place where we can collaborate on it.  Brennan,  Justin suggested that we use Confluence for document collaboration.  We have no othe

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

This is the mantra we must always follow "support what you users want."  Stay focused on the needs and convenience of the end-user.  Always good advice.  If there are complexities dependencies, we should quantine those complexities and dependencies inside the test architecture.  We give the end

Re: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

So I am confused.  It looks like you created a branch in the repository and put all of you code there, bypassing patches and PRs.  This seems a bit of an abuse of your privileges.  I though we agreed that all people, including PPMC members and committers would have to follow the same work flow.

Re: Testing the new repository

I would suggest that we still follow the original process before the new workflow is ready which mean that: 1.We post the patch to dev@nuttx.apache.org or 2.Send the pull request to https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx 3.Only Greg can commit the patch to apache/github repo That has already

Re: Testing the new repository

I would suggest that we still follow the original process before the new workflow is ready which mean that: 1.We post the patch to dev@nuttx.apache.org or 2.Send the pull request to https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx 3.Only Greg can commit the patch to apache/github repo That has alrea

Re: Testing the new repository

And the patch is the same format and put on this mail address just like when we were in the Google Group? I would suggest holding off all changes and PRs until we get a proper workflow in place.  No one will act on them now.

RE: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

Ut-oh It was not intended to be an abuse: This is how PR's or done all the GH projects I am on as a commiter. It is a branch in the repo so like you have always done with patches, you or any of the PMC)can make change to it if need be. It is PR to master in the same repo. The process is simple: re

Re: [PATCH] imxrt fixes FW: [apache/incubator-nuttx] imxrt fixes (#1)

PATCH is here https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1.patch PR is here https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1 I am finished.  I will not review any further changes or make any further commits Greg

Re: Testing the new repository

Opps That would be me. I am sorry I just saw this when I was sending the PR and the URL of the patch to the list. You might as well just merge it to master now.  I am out of the loop on all further changes.

Re: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

Ut-oh It was not intended to be an abuse: This is how PR's or done all the GH projects I am on as a commiter. It is a branch in the repo so like you have always done with patches, you or any of the PMC)can make change to it if need be. It is PR to master in the same repo. The process is simple

RE: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

Ok. But that feels wrong. Aren't we going to have more than one set of eyes on things? I do make a lot of mistakes. I will let it sit a day and give a PMC member a chance to review it. -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 4:5

Re: Testing the new repository

But to avoid we lose the confidence and contribution in the transition phase, it's better that Greg has the special right to be the only person who review and commit the code until the community agree and setup the new workflow. I suppose that the special period should be short and around several w

Re: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

This is David's suggested workflow, but it still in the discussing or voting process? Before we get the approvement from community, we can't apply this process now because its' unfailr to other upcomming potential suggestion. So my suggestion is still to keep the old process: Greg review and commi

Re: Testing the new repository

But to avoid we lose the confidence and contribution in the transition phase, it's better that Greg has the special right to be the only person who review and commit the code until the community agree and setup the new workflow. I suppose that the special period should be short and around sever

Re: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

This is David's suggested workflow, but it still in the discussing or voting process? Before we get the approvement from community, we can't apply this process now because its' unfailr to other upcomming potential suggestion. So my suggestion is still to keep the old process: Greg review and c

RE: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

Fine with me Greg has the patches (we all do - it is in the email) Xiang did you look a the PR? There is important content in it that done not get conveyed in a patch. -Original Message- From: Xiang Xiao [mailto:xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 5:14 AM To: dev@

Re: Testing the new repository

In the transition phase, only you(Greg) can merge PR or create branch, other PPMC member shouldn't touch the official repo. So I think there isn't difference between bitbucket and apache? we just change the repo location, no more change until the new workflow setup. On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 9:15 PM

Re: Testing the new repository

In the transition phase, only you(Greg) can merge PR or create branch, other PPMC member shouldn't touch the official repo. So I think there isn't difference between bitbucket and apache? we just change the repo location, no more change until the new workflow setup. Because of the recent expe

Re: Testing the new repository

> When I agreed to mange the commits through the transition period, that > was conditioned on continuint to use the bitbucket repository that only > I have access to, and then syncing the Apache repositories to the > bitbucket repository. That would work. Didn't we agree on that? I said I would d

Re: Testing the new repository

On 12/21/2019 8:38 AM, Abdelatif Guettouche wrote: When I agreed to mange the commits through the transition period, that was conditioned on continuint to use the bitbucket repository that only I have access to, and then syncing the Apache repositories to the bitbucket repository. That would wor

[GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1#issuecomment-568188369 So we will merge PR to master branch directly? No dev branch? This is an automated message from the Apach

Re: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

For opening a PR, usually you can just fork the repo and create a branch in the forked repo, and then open a PR. It is not necessary to create a branch in the original repo only for a PR. You can open a branch for a big feature, which usually needs a lot of commits and also a very long time before

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

I think we should create a mailing list called commits@nuttx or something else and let the forwarded github message go there... GitBox 于2019年12月21日周六 下午11:16写道： > Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes > URL: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1#issuecomment-568188369 > > >

Re: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

For opening a PR, usually you can just fork the repo and create a branch in the forked repo, and then open a PR. It is not necessary to create a branch in the original repo only for a PR. You can open a branch for a big feature, which usually needs a lot of commits and also a very long time be

[PATCHES] Duplicate master_imxrt

Greg, Please merge these patches. This is duplicate of the link and PR. I will close the PR and delete the branch. David

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

We already have a commits@nuttx mailing list. On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: > > I think we should create a mailing list called commits@nuttx or something > else and let the forwarded github message go there... > > GitBox 于2019年12月21日周六 下午11:16写道： > > > Apache9 commented o

Re: [PATCHES] Duplicate master_imxrt

I will merge nothing.  I resign from the postion of review committer.  The PPMC must handle this not me.  I don't do this any more. On 12/21/2019 9:27 AM, David Sidrane wrote: Greg, Please merge these patches. This is duplicate of the link and PR. I will close the PR and delete the branch. D

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching in the official repo: 1.User submit PR against the master 2.Run style, build and test through CI 3.Review and comment PR by committer 4.Merge PR into master if all check pass User may have to repeat step 1 to 3 several time befor

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching in the official repo: 1.User submit PR against the master 2.Run style, build and test through CI 3.Review and comment PR by committer 4.Merge PR into master if all check pass User may have to repeat step 1 to 3 several time b

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching in the official repo: 1.User submit PR against the master 2.Run style, build and test through CI 3.Review and comment PR by committer 4.Merge PR into master if all check pass User may have to repeat step 1 to 3 several time b

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

On 12/21/2019 11:00 AM, Gregory Nutt wrote: Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching in the official repo: 1.User submit PR against the master 2.Run style, build and test through CI We have no capability to test via CI at present.  We don't even have the requiremen

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

+1 to this. No ci yet so everything "passes" and just gets the commiter review. We can define more later as needed On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 8:44 AM Xiang Xiao wrote: > Can we simplify the workflow to avoid creating so many temp branching > in the official repo: > 1.User submit PR against the mas

RE: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

+1 -Original Message- From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 9:30 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements] +1 to this. No ci yet so everything "passes" and just gets the commiter review. We can

[GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] davids5 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

davids5 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1#issuecomment-568198479 > So we will merge PR to master branch directly? No dev branch? @Apache9 As it stands master has been dev. If we had release branches then master could still

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

+1 I agree that dev or develop or development is a better name. I just submitted to "stage" because I was doing a test. On Saturday, December 21, 2019, David Sidrane wrote: > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 21

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Forwarded Message Subject:Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:55:46 -0500 From: Nathan Hartman Reply-To: dev@nuttx.apache.org To: dev@nuttx.apache.org On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:18 AM Gregory Nutt wrote: Requirements specification

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Forwarded Message Subject:Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:32:31 -0600 From: Gregory Nutt To: dev@nuttx.apache.org I think only 5 emails in the whole list really address these functional requirements. Let me add a 6th... (Without men

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Forwarded Message Subject:Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:09:10 -0500 From: Nathan Hartman Reply-To: dev@nuttx.apache.org To: dev@nuttx.apache.org On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Gregory Nutt wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:32

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Haitao Liu Subject Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] DateWed, 18 Dec 2019 09:51:45 GMT How about just keep two separate git repositories (apps and nuttx projects) instead of add a parent knot repo with apps and nuttx as sub-modules? As to jenkins CI, I haven’t found proper github plugin

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

As you can see, I have been tried to forward relevant emails from this thread.  There are at least two and maybe three that I cannot find. First there is the text which I appended to Nathan's workflow: Proposed Work Flow Proposed Steps from Contribution to Commit  I think the work flow shou

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

There is also this proposed change to the work flow that I did not include only because I don't understand it. Proposed Steps from Contribution to Commit  I think the work flow should be like this: 1. Use git Pre-commit: on developers machine. To run Code-Style (CS) and formatting (EO

Re: Testing the new repository

> > If we adopt the naming conventions of using pr in the branch name then the > fact it is a PR is self referential in nay context command line/web/tablet > >> These random named and created branches just confuse people who clone the >> repo. > > I agree with is in part, naming as in the OS i

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

As you can see, I have been tried to forward relevant emails from this thread.  There are at least two and maybe three that I cannot find. ... There is possibly a third email that I cannot find from David Sidrane that had some thoughts about the work flow.  I can't find it and I don't recal

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

On 12/21/2019 1:32 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote: As you can see, I have been tried to forward relevant emails from this thread.  There are at least two and maybe three that I cannot find. ... There is possibly a third email that I cannot find from David Sidrane that had some thoughts about the wo

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Now I remember, David was proposing a C beautifier to be used in the work flow.  I cannot find that one right now. Related: Gregory Nutt Subject Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] DateWed, 18 Dec 2019 13:36:24 GMT Option d) Make minimal coding standard changes that can be 100% s

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Step 4 Ultimately, it is the committer who is responsible for assuring that (1) the change is technically correct, complete, and of the highest quality.  And that (2) the change is consistent with all of the principles of the Inviolables: The change must not violate the portable POSIX i

Re: Testing the new repository

> > There is no workflow definition. DavidS started a thread, but so far it has > only general principles, no work flow. > I for one struggle to “define a workflow” without using the vernacular of the underlying tool (git + githug/gitlab/bitbucket). Best practices SW development workflows,

Re: Testing the new repository

There is no workflow definition. DavidS started a thread, but so far it has only general principles, no work flow. I for one struggle to “define a workflow” without using the vernacular of the underlying tool (git + githug/gitlab/bitbucket). Best practices SW development workflows, today

Re: Testing the new repository

> >>> There is no workflow definition. DavidS started a thread, but so far it >>> has only general principles, no work flow. >>> >> I for one struggle to “define a workflow” without using the vernacular of >> the underlying tool (git + githug/gitlab/bitbucket). Best practices SW >> developme

Re: Testing the new repository

Those people with devops should coordinate in another thread and make proposals for top-level functional to the broader audience. We have enough smart and disciplined people here, I think we can do this. We should be able to spec from the top-level (no tool speak) process down the the nit

Re: Testing the new repository

Those people with devops should coordinate in another thread and make proposals for top-level functional to the broader audience. We have enough smart and disciplined people here, I think we can do this. We should be able to spec from the top-level (no tool speak) process down the the nit

Re: Testing the new repository

This discussion is really on the wrong thread.  It should by on the *[CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]* thread.  I have forward every relevant email and document that I can find to the thread.  This conversation belongs on that thread in the  proper context as well. On 12/21/2019 2:30

Re: Testing the new repository

> >> When I agreed to mange the commits through the transition period, that > >> was conditioned on continuint to use the bitbucket repository that only > >> I have access to, and then syncing the Apache repositories to the > >> bitbucket repository. That would work. > > Didn't we agree on that? >

Re: Testing the new repository

When I agreed to mange the commits through the transition period, that was conditioned on continuint to use the bitbucket repository that only I have access to, and then syncing the Apache repositories to the bitbucket repository. That would work. Didn't we agree on that? I said I would do th

Re: Testing the new repository

Hi, BTW all committers have permission to make changes to the repo, code is usually checked in via a RTC (review then commit - like you are doing) or CTR (commit then review) process. Most Apache projects use CTR, but some do have RTC and rules around who needs to review them. A lot of projects

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Forwarded: "David S. Alessio" Subject Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] DateThu, 19 Dec 2019 00:33:00 GMT We’ve digressed a bit on this thread. Let’s see if we can reboot DavidS’ Workflow thread and keep the thread on topic. Let me start by stating a few [obvious] objectives: Keep t

Code review tool

Hi, I just tool a look at the tool Greg uses from review, and notice it runs an exe: tools/nxstyle.exe -m 86 $file So that not going to work for all committers. As I’m not familial with the project, perhaps i’m missing something. Where is the source for this tool located? Thanks, Justin

Re: Testing the new repository

Can we do that for the PR that David created? (I mean applying it on bitbucket and I bring it to github) It would takes some agreement to do that.  But I don't want to do that either anymore.  The more I think about not having to apply patches everyday, the better I feel about it.  I feel l

Simple Workflow Proposal

I really want to let people to contribute (myself included) ASAP so I was to propose this as an option to get going and can be amended later. I know it does not resolve all the issues, but offers what I think is a reasonable avenue to get started. Submit a PR on GitHub against master if it is appr

Re: Testing the new repository

There is essential no change activity in the project.  Normally there are might be 50 changes per week, but I think that there were only 6 last week.  That is good and bad.  It is good because I don't see any reason for the PPMC to fear it is going to overwhelmed by changes in the near futur

Re: Testing the new repository

Thats what I stated from day 1. Maybe its an idea to come up with a plan / roadmap so people can see whats going on and what has to be done and which issues are there... lead people . now its grey and shady over A) expertise B) progress their in the dark now? These mails are giving back

Re: Testing the new repository

I understand you concerns.  I have them too.  Things do not look good now.  The brand has been damaged.  And things will probably get worse before they get better.  How optimistic am I in that? Not very.  But there are some very talented people who volunteered to work on this project and I hope

Re: Testing the new repository

Hi, > It is bad because I interpret this to mean that people have lost confidence > in the project and are just no longer submitting changes. There could be > other reasons, but if it is due to lack of confidence that would be an > indication that the project is being damaged by the lack of co

Re: Testing the new repository

Hi, > I thought Apache would bring in their workflow and automated tooling and > experience with these projects? The workflow and tooling is up to this project to determine. Apache has resources that the project can use if it needs to do so. > Maybe Apache can chip in to come with suggestions

Re: New Apache NuttX Repositories

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:24 PM David S. Alessio wrote: > Greg, > > > On a tangental note, what will become of our remaining repos: > buildroot > I’m preparing a PR to upgrade binutils and gcc! Can you still accept > updates on Bitbucket? > tools > nxwidgets Regarding the "tools," "buildroot,

Re: Code review tool

Hi, Perhaps someone wants to work on making a portable version of this? It seems it would be using for checking PRs and part of the CI system. Thanks, Justin

did the NuttX Slack move?

Hi, Did the nuttx Slack move? I see that https://nuttx.slack.com says it's been deleted. cheers adam -- Adam Feuer

Re: Simple Workflow Proposal

+1 We should get things done first, and then try to make it better. For now I agree that the most important thing is to let people contribute, although the automate CI is not ready, the committers could do the check manually and start to accept patches/PRs. Thanks. Brennan Ashton 于2019年12月22日周

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

I checked HBase, we are forwarding the nofitication to issues@hbase, seems more reasonable. So if no objections, let's file an infra issue to create an issues@nuttx mailing list and also forward the notification there? Thanks. Abdelatif Guettouche 于2019年12月21日周六 下午11:28写道： > We already have a

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

HI, > So if no objections, let's file an infra issue to create an issues@nuttx > mailing list and also forward the notification there? We can create one ourselves, why why have an issues@ when we already have a commit@? Thanks, Justin

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

Hi, I'd recommend having new issues sent to dev@ so people can see them (which I believe is the default and how It’s currently set up). If we find this gets too noisy then we can think about changing it or creating new list, but IMO there’s no need to solve an issue we don’t have yet. Thanks,

Re: Simple Workflow Proposal

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:19 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: > +1 > > We should get things done first, and then try to make it better. > > For now I agree that the most important thing is to let people contribute, > although the automate CI is not ready, the committers could do the check > manually and

Re: did the NuttX Slack move?

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 10:45 PM Adam Feuer wrote: > Hi, > > Did the nuttx Slack move? I see that https://nuttx.slack.com says it's > been > deleted. Hello Adam, As part of the transition to Apache, Greg removed the NuttX Slack. Everyone is invited and encouraged to have NuttX-related communic

Re: did the NuttX Slack move?

Thanks Nathan– that explains it. :) -adam On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 8:50 PM Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 10:45 PM Adam Feuer wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Did the nuttx Slack move? I see that https://nuttx.slack.com says it's >> been >> deleted. > > > Hello Adam, > > As part of the tr

problem booting NuttX on SAMA5D3-Xplained

Hi, NuttX newbie here. I'm trying to load NuttX onto a SAMA5D3-Xplained board. I am trying to follow the board's README file. I am using the Gnu ARM embedded toolchain v9 and a Segge

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:26 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > Let me start by stating a few [obvious] objectives: > Keep things simple for those NuttX users who prefer to work with a zip’d > release. > provide best-practice tools and workflow to maximize productivity of > developers living on > the bleed

Re: did the NuttX Slack move?

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 12:15 AM Adam Feuer wrote: > Thanks Nathan– that explains it. :) > > -adam > Glad to help. Cheers, Nathan

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

I think a PR is more like an issue rather than a commit? Justin Mclean 于2019年12月22日周日 下午12:40写道： > HI, > > > So if no objections, let's file an infra issue to create an issues@nuttx > > mailing list and also forward the notification there? > > We can create one ourselves, why why have an issues@

Re: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx] Apache9 commented on issue #1: imxrt fixes

You can see that we have already sent the discussions on the PR to the dev list, and based on the activity of nuttx community, it will soon become noisy. I agree that we could keep the new PR nofitication to dev list, but I do not think we should send the comments to dev list. Justin Mclean 于2019

Re: Code review tool

Hi Justin, Nxstyle is a C file that you can find under tools. You can build it under any OS. Greg is just using Windows. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 03:50 Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps someone wants to work on making a portable version of this? It > seems it would be using for checking PRs