I tend to disagree.
You have extreme views that all commits need to be discussed. That is false.
What need to be discussed is much subtle.
We need to have discussion whenever ANYONE has a doubt about something
that is happening on github BEFORE this is committed.
Xiaomi (and other companies, but xiaomi is very representative of this)
would have more reviewers if commits that ACTUALLY need reviews were
discussed on the list.
I have done so every time I planned to push more than trivial code.
But they dont do so, and have no wish to do so, because they want to
move fast. I know this when I developed a crypto API. I was contacted by
Xiaomi for questions and requests because I was too slow. Then they took
it from me and made it their own way and merged it without me. That is
not right. As a consequence I stopped doing anything on this topic.
Future TLS and smart card work coming in 2023 (finally funded) will be
kept private unless things change drastically.
Nathan said it much better than me, we NEED to know the roadmap of all
companies who want to push any amount of code to nuttx, and this HAS to
be done publicly.
At this point I am considering this project has no wish to follow the
Apache foundation rules, and is actively violating them using false
justifications.
Calling out people like me and asking for more contribution instead of
complaining is NOT RIGHT.
I am using NuttX in my company, I fix the bugs I find and I submit the
useful contributions.
I am not paid to contribute to NuttX. I am paid to develop products that
use NuttX, and as a consequence I make it work when needed.
I have no plans to be a maintainer for this project, more so given the
current conditions.
But as a user, I have the right to say that current maintenance is not
right.
Sebastien
Le 08/03/2023 à 15:54, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
Sebastien,
If all the discussions that happens on github start to happen here,
this mailing list will be just like the nuttx-commits mailing list.
So, your point is a catch 22! (dilemma)... You are against using
github and against have a mailing list with huge email messages.
Also you cannot complain that more than 90% of commits are coming from Xiaomi.
And the only reason that many PRs are approved and merged by Xiaomi
people is because we don't have enough reviewers to help.
So, instead complain that the route is going to wrong direction, start
to help to construct the route, simple like that!
Also, what you can do as a NuttX advocate is ask the semiconductor
company used on your project to support NuttX.
If they don't agree, move for some semiconductor company that are
contributing to NuttX (Espressif, Sony, NXP, etc).
BR,
Alan
On 3/8/23, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
I dont think your point of view is very realistic. You seem to be
turning the situation into something that pleases you but is not really
compatible with what can be observed from outside.
In the archive for 2023 there are 2035 topics, I just overlooked more
than 600 of them and ALL of them are just copies of github messages. And
this is normal, because this is unusable.
Also, I cannot actively review ALL the hundreds of pull requests that
are regularly sent by large companies.
I am primarily a user, that sometimes sends small contributions.
And I am unhappy when I see that other people were careless with nice
code and do whatever they want for their own agenda without any
consideration for other users.
To be honest I dont fully understand why SO MANY changes are required to
core OS features that should be stable.
There need to be some triage when a new pull request is sent, its
severity evaluated by someone who is NOT in the company of the original
contributor, and if severe, it has to be approved on the mailing list. I
cannot do that alone, even if I try.
At this point do you realize that more than !~90ish% of changes seem to
come from xiaomi developers and most of these are approved by xiaoxiang
alone?
Because this HAS to be said. They send overwhelming numbers
contributions that cannot be possibly understood as a whole, there is no
clear agenda, they add whatever they like with no roadmap and no review
from other users that may have other uses.
This has to be under control somehow. I believe even you Alan are not
aware of the amount of code that enters nuttx. No one can be now.
Sebastien
Le 08/03/2023 à 14:39, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
Hi Sebastien,
Yes, that commit list is mostly for people who don't want to use
github but still wanting to see what is going on.
Sometimes when a very important PR raises some concern on GitHub PR,
people post their concern he, it already happened many times.
But again: the best way to guarantee that current changes please you
is to keep actively reviewing the PRs and contributing to the project.
BR,
Alan
On 3/8/23, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
Hi,
I had a look and this mailing list is not made for human consumption.
No one has ever sent a message on it manually, right?
In practice, important changes are still NOT discussed on the DEV
mailing list.
You said yourself that "all development has moved to github".
As soon as automated tests are passed, every commit is considered with a
similar level of importance, however this is clearly not the case.
Sebastien
Le 08/03/2023 à 13:21, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
HI Sebastien,
It is already done, you just need to subscribe to
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@nuttx.apache.org to receive
all commits messages and discussions.
Everything is archived on apache side!
BR,
Alan
On 3/8/23, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
Apache projects are required to use mailing lists for long term
archival
purposes.
It seems to me that this project is avoiding that rule and moved all
development to github
This is in contradiction with the Apache project rules.
I request clarification on this situation and requirement (instead of
just asserting it), including a review by the apache boards.
If it is proved that development happens primarily in github and not
here I will request the following:
-every people committing patches and submitting pull request to be
registered on the mailing list so they are able to reply to questions
-forwarding of all pull requests traffic to the mailing list
For two reasons: (1) Archival purposes, and (2) open discussions with
members that follow Apache Foundation mailing list rules and do not
take
part in github.
Thank you
Sebastien
