Dear Friends of the NuttX Community, Hello everyone! We've seen the discussions around AI-generated PRs and our contribution model, and we don't want to use too many formalities—just want to talk openly from the heart, even if some words need to be said bluntly. Xiaomi's investment in NuttX far exceeds what many might imagine. Over the past period, we've dedicated at least ten times the usual development effort: not only fixing various low-level bugs, adapting to multiple hardware platforms, but also proactively developing many core features that the community needs. Every submitted feature has undergone multiple rounds of internal verification—our sole goal is to truly make NuttX more powerful and user-friendly. We're not here to "gain visibility"; we're investing real resources and manpower, hoping to work with the community to make this project better. Regarding the use of AI tools, we want to reiterate: it's never about "cutting corners." Instead, it's to free up energy from repetitive tasks like code formatting and routine code completion, so we can focus more on complex feature design and problem troubleshooting. Even so, we welcome reasonable review comments and are willing to continuously optimize code quality. However, there are situations that truly make us feel wronged and disappointed: some reviewers' comments often stay on the surface without deeply understanding the functional design logic, yet they insist on us submitting various repetitive test code. Some test scenarios have already been covered, and some tests even go beyond the reasonable scope of the feature itself. This not only adds unnecessary workload to us but also slows down the entire contribution process. Here, we'd like to communicate specifically with @Matteo Golin: we believe your intention to focus on code quality is good, but there are aspects of your review work that are hard to accept. You always insist on us providing test code, even demanding test results and logs strongly related to code changes, yet it seems you haven't taken the time to truly understand our code design first. As a reviewer, this is actually irresponsible. We sincerely hope you can raise questions related to the code changes themselves—such as suggestions on design logic or implementation details—rather than repeatedly asking only about test results. The rationality and correctness of code should first be based on an understanding of the implementation logic, not merely relying on test outputs. We hope you can acknowledge this. In particular, after seeing @Sebastien's reply, many of us on the Xiaomi team feel both saddened and angry. You said "reducing Xiaomi's contributions is a good thing" and "avoiding NuttX becoming XiaomiX"—we ask you: how many patches have you actually contributed to NuttX in the past? Looking through the community's submission records, we haven't seen any substantial code contributions from you at all! You haven't participated in core feature development, nor have you fixed any critical bugs, yet you stand on the sidelines making such cynical remarks and denying all our hard work. This truly breaks the hearts of the developers who have been working diligently. We respect the community's review rules and appreciate the efforts of all maintainers, but open-source collaboration should be two-way: we bring maximum sincerity and effort to contribute—not only proactively investing resources in developing core features, but also inviting @raiden00pl to enhance the community's CI/CT capabilities, aiming to align the community's automated testing system with Xiaomi's internal standards to fundamentally ensure code quality. In return, we hope to receive more constructive review feedback: such as comments on core functional design issues instead of getting stuck on trivial details; recognizing the test work we've already done instead of mindlessly demanding "more test code." What's more, regression and code quality shouldn't rely solely on manual review by reviewers—they need sufficient CI/CT verification as the foundation. And it's absolutely unacceptable for someone with no substantial contributions to arbitrarily deny all our efforts and value. NuttX is not an "exclusive project" of any individual or team. Its growth requires the joint efforts of all contributors. Xiaomi is willing to continue investing because we believe in its value and sincerely hope to work with the community to make it better. We never ask for "special treatment"—we just want fair and reasonable treatment, so that our efforts can truly translate into the community's progress, rather than being easily denied and criticized. If you have specific, targeted suggestions for our contributions, we will definitely listen carefully and make active adjustments. But if there's only pure doubt, prejudice, or irresponsible cynical remarks from those who haven't contributed anything—it will honestly make us increasingly question the meaning of continuing to invest. We hope that in the future, we can have more mutual understanding, more fact-based communication, and less unnecessary internal friction and prejudice—working together to make NuttX even better. If mutual respect cannot be achieved, such collaboration will be difficult to sustain. Best regards, Donny
Sebastien Lorquet <[email protected]> 于2026年2月4日周三 17:33写道： > Hello again, > > I have warned about this problem for YEARS AND YEARS and it happened > EXACTLY as I had seen. > > It is a good thing to be honest, that will reduce the amount of work > from nuttx maintainers. > > If openvela (as I understand) has good features added by xiaomi, it is > the task of nuttx to upstream them as they wish, in a calm and positive > way, by taking enough time to think about the design and structure, > without all the stress and speed of a commercial corporate project. > > NuttX is not a commercial project. it has no targets to reach and no > investors to please. > > It is a much nicer way to work and I think it is better like that. > > It is a good thing to have less xiaomi contributions forced in nuttx. > > I think we can thank them for their past contributions that made nuttx > grow, but it is also a good thing to realize when it must stop (eg, > before NuttX becomes XiaomiX). > > Sebastien > > > On 2/4/26 10:11, raiden00pl wrote: > > I think the root cause is completely different. The real problem here is > > Xiaomi's > > attempt to add changes from its entire annual development cycle. Year of > > changes > > from a large development team to an open source community with fewer than > > 10 active > > members. The community is flooded with changes it can't process, and > Xiaomi > > is > > blocked because they can't add further changes based on unmerged changes. > > The tension is rising, and we have what we have: a disaster. This > approach > > is > > an obvious recipe for failure. > > > > This approach hasn't worked recently, and it's not working now. The > Xiaomi > > team > > is growing much faster than the NuttX community. The number of changes > from > > Xiaomi > > is growing, and it has now reached absurd proportions. > > If these changes were added gradually, without waiting for the end of the > > year, > > the problem would be much smaller. >
