Fixed!
On 4/1/22, Jukka Laitinen <jukka.laiti...@iki.fi> wrote: > I am not the author there, just feel that the process is not fair for the > author. > > The PR has over 300 comments, and they come in bunches of 20, every day one > bunch more. Most of them are just of type "please replace xxxyyy with > xxx_yyy", or "please move these lines 20 lines above". That is, purely > subjective "I think this looks better if..". > > The author (who I know and have very high respect for) has been re-basing > this PR and all the work on top of it now for weeks, since while delaying > this PR, there are other breaking stuff being pushed in with fast pace by > the company of the main reviewer. > > Earlier this week, Petro K. did some good work with the author and everyone > seemed happy, the PR was approved. But after approval it didn't get merged, > but received another 20 "maybe it looks better this way" from the other > reviewer! > > - Jukka > > Alan Carvalho de Assis kirjoitti perjantai 1. huhtikuuta 2022: >> Hi Jukka, >> >> I think everybody want RISC-V with Kernel mode support on NuttX. >> >> Sometimes we get really angry because some comments seem too picky, >> but we need to believe in the "The Wisdom of Crowds" (i.e.: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfh-k9P8ZPI ) >> >> So, instead getting mad about it, please try to implement the >> suggestions. You are an experienced contributor and I'm sure you can >> get this PR accepted as well. :-) >> >> BR, >> >> Alan >> >> On 4/1/22, Jukka Laitinen <jukka.laiti...@iki.fi> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > If RISC-V S-mode and CONFIG_BUILD_KERNEL support is not wanted into >> > NuttX, >> > please say it out loud instead of playing unfair review games. >> > >> > The team has better things to do than re-write code letter-by letter >> > via >> > code review, week after week. The code is good quality and working, and >> > is >> > done according to nuttx standards. >> > >> > We have always the option to keep it all ourselves and branch off. We >> > do >> > want to contribute, but if there is no will to receive code, we can >> > change >> > the policy and just bring in small bugfixes in the future and let the >> > fundamental larger improvements stay in our own repositories. >> > >> > If you want to prettify things to look better to your eye, just make >> > another >> > PR *yourself* *after* merging the working, well inspected and approved >> > PR. >> > >> > Thanks for your input for this issue, >> > Jukka >> > >>
