HI Javier,
I'm on an older branch as well thus didn't have this issue yet.
But looking on the code it's reverting a regression.
Feel free to send in a PR I'll review it.
Yours sincerely,
Peter van der Perk
-Original Message-
From: Javier Casas Marin
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 5:25
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
Hi Javier,
Good to hear.
If it working fine for you with the fix, feel free to send a PR into upstream
NuttX.
Yours sincerely,
Peter van der Perk
-Original Message-
From: Javier Casas Marin
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:59 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: socket CAN timestam
Hi Peter,
Thanks for answering. You are right, moving the timestamp generation back
up fixes the issue and it makes more sense to have the code there, before
branching the code flow, than having it duplicated in both paths.
Thanks!
Javier Casas Marín
Geotab
Senior Embedded Systems Developer
Di
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 Peter,
I was thinking about that, the thing is that we are using Nuttx as a
submodule in our system and we haven't updated it in a while so right now
we are using a quite older version and I'm not able to test the fix in
master. I can send a PR but I don't think it will be approved without the
p
