> > Maintaining two build systems in parallel does not really make sense to > me. There should be only one and used and maintained by the community. >
We cannot get rid of the make in one commit. If we want CMake, it should grow alongside the make. ср, 9 июн. 2021 г. в 14:32, Ken Pettit <petti...@gmail.com>: > My opinion: > > CMake is horrible. Don't do it. It's hard to use for beginners, and > hard to use for anyone who isn't just a strong advocate for it. > > Just my opionion. > Ken > > > On 6/9/21 6:46 AM, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > I think that there a lot of people like myself who are opposed to the > > CMake change but are remain silent to let the community make the > > decision. I suspect that the advocates of CMake are having a larger > > voice in the decision. > > > > On 6/9/2021 7:38 AM, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I believe in a stong principle, applied successfully numerous time in > >> my embedded development company: > >> > >> > >> It it's not broken, dont fix it. > >> > >> > >> That applies precisely to this change. > >> > >> The build system we have have the following characteristics > >> > >> -it works for its intended purposes > >> > >> -it is pretty complex > >> > >> -ALL USERS have become used to it > >> > >> > >> Changing it > >> > >> - will bring a lot of new bugs > >> > >> - along with the annoying feeling that these bugs were not necessary > >> in the first place > >> > >> - No one will understand the build system anymore > >> > >> - since makefiles are now generated, we rely on yet another external > >> tool with bugs in itself, and its idiosyncrasies and workarounds. > >> > >> > >> Moreover: > >> > >> -the doc about nuttx is not hosted by the nuttx project, so 99 % of > >> the nuttx documentation will become fully obsolete overnight. > >> > >> > >> Gratuitous changes are a hell, they destroy efficiency. > >> > >> They tend to appear more frequently in open source projects, because > >> anyone can bring it change without a single damn given to customer > >> since the code has no warranty of fitness of etc etc open source > >> legalese. > >> > >> > >> If it was me, I would not do this change. If I had to take a decision > >> about something similar in my company, it would be a strong no. > >> > >> > >> Sebastien > >> > >> > >> Le 09/06/2021 à 14:57, Matias N. a écrit : > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> this thread has received little engagement from the community > >>> in general, for a change with such impact on daily use of NuttX > >>> for everyone. > >>> > >>> While there was positive feedback on GH and a few people have > >>> expressed more interest, not much has really happened. Meanwhile, > >>> the backlog of changes that would need to be backported continues > >>> to increase. > >>> > >>> At the same time, I see many PRs addressing subtle issues with > >>> current build system, which are mostly already solved with the > >>> migration > >>> to CMake. So there's continued effort in maintaining the current system > >>> which could be in part dedicated to the migration to a better system. > >>> > >>> I have offered technical guidance on testing and extending to other > >>> platforms and also to add base support for other arch's so that the > >>> focus > >>> can be put mostly at the board level and on test and validation on > >>> different > >>> platforms and target hardware. However, after having worked on this > >>> for more than a month I feel this is not really picking up the > >>> interest it > >>> requires for proper adoption by the community. > >>> > >>> Maybe the proper approach would be to call on a vote (*) > >>> for this feature to have explicit support from the community and > >>> ensure involvement from others than me to move forward. > >>> Otherwise, or if the vote does not pass, I will not be pushing > >>> forward with this. > >>> > >>> (*) As a commiter (non-PPMC member), I'm not sure if I can formally > >>> call on > >>> a vote and what the exact procedure is, but maybe other PPMC member > >>> can do so. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Matias > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 15:05, Nathan Hartman wrote: > >>>> I am interested and I'll try to help with boards I can test. It > >>>> will take a > >>>> few days to get around to it because this has been a busy month, > >>>> but I'm > >>>> catching up. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Nathan > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:25 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis > >>>> <acas...@gmail.com <mailto:acassis%40gmail.com>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think we can divide the effort to port all the boards to the new > >>>>> CMake. > >>>>> > >>>>> I can start take care of ESP32, ESP32-C3 and ESP32-S2. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let see if we get more people involved in this effort. > >>>>> > >>>>> BR, > >>>>> > >>>>> Alan > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/1/21, Matias N. <mat...@imap.cc <mailto:matias%40imap.cc>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> just wanted to add that until this is ready, the gap between > >>>>>> master and > >>>>> the > >>>>>> branch > >>>>>> widens with every merged PR and this increases the backporting > >>>>>> effort. > >>>>>> I'm willing to do most of the remaining work but as I mentioned I > >>>>>> cannot > >>>>>> possibly test everything so > >>>>>> help is needed. > >>>>>> I'd really like your feedback on this before I continue and > >>>>>> ensure the > >>>>>> effort will not go to waste. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Matias > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, May 29, 2021, at 14:06, Matias N. wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> for anyone not following the relevant PR, please have a look at the > >>>>>>> current state here: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/3704 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is now at a point where it can be tested by others. It > >>>>>>> would be > >>>>> very > >>>>>>> good to get some > >>>>>>> help testing what I got so far (sim and stm32f4discovery, both > >>>>>>> on Linux > >>>>>>> and mac), by running > >>>>>>> examples and test. There are some brief instructions at the end > >>>>>>> of the > >>>>> PR > >>>>>>> description for building. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Other than that, I can continue porting other arch's and boards > >>>>>>> with the > >>>>>>> help of CI but it would be > >>>>>>> best if others with more boards could help testing (and ideally > >>>>>>> with > >>>>> some > >>>>>>> PRs, as the hard part > >>>>>>> is mostly done) those as well. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also, note that this is a PR against a branch so we could > >>>>>>> eventually > >>>>> merge > >>>>>>> it before adding support > >>>>>>> for other arch/boards. And finally, I will provide documentation > >>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>> new build system in a separate > >>>>>>> PR at some point, which I hope will ease the transition and help > >>>>>>> reviewing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Matias > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, at 18:43, Xiang Xiao wrote: > >>>>>>>> A new issue is opened recently to address this topic: > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/3455 > >>>>>>>> This proposal has the depth of the impact in our daily working, > >>>>>>>> so it's > >>>>>>>> very important to get the feedback from the community before > >>>>>>>> the real > >>>>>>>> action is taken. > >>>>>>>> If you have any concern or suggestion, please reply to this email. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> Xiang > >>>>>>>> > > > >
