nuttxpr commented on PR #14937:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14937#issuecomment-2498542421

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   No, this PR does *not* fully meet the NuttX requirements based on the 
information provided. While it attempts to address some sections, it lacks 
crucial details.
   
   Here's a breakdown of what's missing:
   
   **Summary:**
   
   * **Insufficient Detail:** "Update documentation to use correct script" is 
too vague.  Which documentation? What was the incorrect script? Why was it 
incorrect? What's the correct script's purpose?  Be specific!  Example: "The 
documentation for debugging with GDB incorrectly referenced `gdbinit.sh`. This 
PR updates the documentation to correctly reference the Python-based 
initialization script, `tools/gdb/gdbinit.py`, which provides enhanced 
debugging features like..."
   
   **Impact:**
   
   * **Too Brief:** While "No" answers the questions,  it doesn't inspire 
confidence. Briefly explain *why* there's no impact. For example: "No impact on 
users, build, hardware, security, or compatibility. This is a 
documentation-only change." Even for "no impact" items, a brief justification 
strengthens the PR.  If the documentation fix corrects an error that prevented 
users from debugging, that *is* a user impact (positive, but still an impact).
   
   **Testing:**
   
   * **Missing Critical Information:** "Documentation locally build pass" is 
inadequate.
       * **Build Host:** Specify your OS, CPU architecture, and compiler 
version.  Example: "Linux, x86_64, GCC 12.1"
       * **Target:**  If the documentation refers to a specific target, mention 
it. Even if it's generic documentation, state that. Example:  "N/A - 
Documentation change only" or "Tested on: sim:qemu-x86_64"
       * **No Logs:**  There's no need for extensive logs for a documentation 
change, but showing the *relevant* parts of the documentation before and after 
the change would be beneficial. This could be a snippet of the rendered 
documentation or the source markdown.
   
   
   **In short, the PR needs more context and specifics to be considered 
complete.**  Reviewers need enough information to understand the change, its 
rationale, and how it was validated.  The current description doesn't provide 
that.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to