+1 100%

I think that the PR should have a summary as well to ensure it is all tied
together. Unless we enable rebase/squash the information will be disjoint.

David


-----Original Message-----
From: alin.jerpe...@sony.com <alin.jerpe...@sony.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:13 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Cc: Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr>
Subject: RE: DISCUSSION - Usage of mailing lists for apache projects

Hi all,

I agree with David but in my opinion this information should go in the
commit message and no commit without message should be merged.
Not all people will check the PR message but you will always see the reasons
simply by typing "git log" if they are in the commit message

What do you think ?

Thanks
Alin


-----Original Message-----
From: David Sidrane <david.sidr...@nscdg.com>
Sent: den 9 mars 2023 10:00
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Cc: Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr>
Subject: RE: DISCUSSION - Usage of mailing lists for apache projects

I would add that all pull request must have a statement explaining the
reason or motivation for the change(s).

Just stating the "What" was done is not enough. There must be a "Why" the
change is needed.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: alin.jerpe...@sony.com <alin.jerpe...@sony.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:39 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Cc: Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr>
Subject: RE: DISCUSSION - Usage of mailing lists for apache projects

Hi all,

I  feel that this thread is getting too long without a real outcome

Some observations from my daily interactions with the project:
- I like doing reviews on github and I think that many people in this thread
would agree that this flow is good.
- I like to be able to see all bugs in one place and get statistics  for the
ASF reports

What I don’t feel right
- even if I spend time daily on reviewing patches there are still changes
that I miss and it is hard to get the flow on release date
- some breaking changes are not discussed enough with the community since
there are some people that do not have time to review code on gihub.

As a way going forward I propose that we improve in 2 aspects
- All breaking commits should be discusses on dev so that people get enough
time to digest the change and even better get involved int the flow
- all breaking changes should be documented on the release confluence page
before merging so that we don’t miss mentioning them on release date.
- there should be at least 1 independent reviewer (not from the same
company) so that a patch is merged except board changes (ex an employee from
the same company merges a patch submitted by another employee from the same
company, for a board provided by the same company)

Thanks
Alin

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan C. Assis <acas...@gmail.com>
Sent: den 8 mars 2023 19:15
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Cc: Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr>
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION - Usage of mailing lists for apache projects

Hi Lwazi,

It is not sarcarm, I'm talking about facts.

Also I didn't say Sebastien points aren't valid, but is diverting from the
real issue.

The issue is not if the discussion is happening here or there, the Problem
is that we don't have enough reviewers.

So, first step is that NuttX needs to increase the user base, but have few
users really engaged with the project, reviewing patches every single day.
Currently today he have few: Petro and Xiang are exceptional on this point.
They are my inspiration to try do more!

Welcome back go NuttX Lwazi (I'm not been sarcastic, I'm happy to hear from
you again! You have a great knowledge of BLE can we need! I was expecting
you to share that working example of BLE application using our BLE stack).

BR,

Alan

On 3/8/23, Lwazi Dube <lwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:55, Alan C. Assis <acas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I'll take this as sarcasm. Sebastien is making a lot of valid points,
> in good faith, and being dismissive does not help the community.
>

Reply via email to