Since creating a fork of a repository and initially using it "as-is" does not involve any actual code modifications, would a formal vote ? In other words, we aren’t change any code.
*--Felipe Moura de Oliveira* Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0> On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 at 13:09 Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> wrote: > Apache votig rules for code changes work differently. See Votes on code > modification > in https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Basically all voting > members have a veto right and can stop any code change. > > So, it is important to get concurrence before the vote or, at least, > assure that no one is dramatically opposed to any code change. This is > where you get to use you people skills and power of persuasion. > ________________________________ > From: Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 8:51 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Discussing the governance of NuttX’s esp-hal-3rdparty > dependency > > Hold on Alan, I think we should have a vote on it. I also think it needs > some more discussion to decide on a way to approach making the new HAL > since there seems to be some opposing views about forking, making a custom > one, etc. > > It hasn't been very long since we opened this thread, maybe we can reach > out to our Espressif contributors directly to ask them for comment in case > they did not monitor this thread. > > Best, > Matteo > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 11:02 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ok, since we didn't hear from Espressif contributors and everybody agreed > > it is better to have a HAL under NuttX than under an external company, > > let's create it. > > > > BR, > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 2:48 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, I agree we need a common agreement to implement such modification. > > > And today we are more divided about AI usage. > > > > > > But I agree we are discussing two or three separated things. > > > > > > Let's return to the main issue. First we need to know if the Espressif > > > contributors agree to contribute to a esp-hal hosted on NuttX side. > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2026, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > I disagree with the suggestion that those interested in exploring > > this > > >> path should just create a separate experimental project. In an > > open-source > > >> community, every contribution and idea is valuable, even if it > > introduces > > >> disagreement or ultimately fails. > > >> > > >> Yes, in spirit. This is why the idea is being discussed here. But > > >> ultimately, without consensus, we can't just have everyone's > > experimental > > >> ideas merged into NuttX to succeed/fail there. That is why we are > > >> discussing it first. NuttX mainline is not a playground for anything, > > >> that's why we take pains to ask for testing logs and get proper PR > > >> descriptions. > > >> > > >> The ESP HAL is used in many devices. One such device is my ESP32 based > > >> rocket altimeter. This altimer is responsible for deploying parachutes > > on > > >> my very expensive rocket. If that goes wrong, my rocket crashes and I > > lose > > >> a lot of money and time. I don't want to rely on an experimental, AI > > >> written HAL for this. I much prefer the iterated, strictly tested and > > >> maintained HAL by the company itself. A NuttX written HAL would need > to > > be > > >> well tested, understood and maintained for me to want to make the > > switch. > > >> These changes have real consequences, and for companies much larger > than > > >> just lowly old me and my hobby rockets. Keeping guarantees for users > is > > >> the > > >> utmost concern and we always need to weigh that when considering > > options. > > >> We are unfortunately not free to just experiment with anything in > > mainline > > >> when we'd like. > > >> > > >> Matteo > > >> > > >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, 12:52 p.m. Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > What Raiden mentioned is right: AI generated or not, this is > something > > >> we > > >> > have to discuss with the Espressif maintainers. They are incredibly > > >> active > > >> > and keep our ESP support up to date. As much as I want our own NuttX > > >> HAL, > > >> > we have to decide if it's worth trading for the burden of having our > > >> own, > > >> > non-Espressif maintainers for it. I'm incredibly against the AI > > rewrite, > > >> > but at this time I would also be against a by-hand rewrite unless we > > >> > somehow get continued support maintaining it, either by Espressif or > > >> other > > >> > devs, at the level we get from Espressif right now. That kind of > > >> maintainer > > >> > work is super valuable to NuttX, which already has few maintainers. > > >> > > > >> > Also, respectfully, thinking that a new HAL rewritten to follow > NuttX > > >> > idioms will have bit-by-bit identical output to the original ESP HAL > > is > > >> > wishful thinking. All kinds of things, including internal data > > >> structures, > > >> > will be different. Unless I am misunderstanding that proposition, > that > > >> is > > >> > definitely not going to work as a testing plan for a new HAL. > > >> > > > >> > Matteo > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, 12:44 p.m. Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 4:27 PM Marco C. <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > Let me try to explain the methodology so you can open your mind: > > >> >> > (..) > > >> >> > Open your mind. Peace. > > >> >> > Marco Casaroli > > >> >> > > >> >> We are open-minded Marco, very, it is highly unfair to say we are > > not. > > >> >> > > >> >> You need to take into a consideration that all NuttX related work > is > > >> >> done in our free time at the expense of any other tasks sometimes > our > > >> >> families and so called private human life. > > >> >> > > >> >> We are also people taking personal responsibility for the products > > >> >> development, its delivery, and maintenance. If things take too > > complex > > >> >> and too long to deliver we are out of business. If things fail on > > >> >> production we are out of business. If we are unable to maintain and > > >> >> service products we are out of business. This out of business also > > >> >> means measurable financial responsibility. > > >> >> > > >> >> Most of us are owners of the company, business, product. We have > > >> >> experiences that made us have solid stand on the ground and think > the > > >> >> way we think. Its okay to play around and experiment, but its not > > okay > > >> >> to impose experiments on everyone around, like so called modern > world > > >> >> does right now. We cannot build without solid foundations, when all > > >> >> components change all the time, including software and recently > even > > >> >> hardware components. Its a big complex mess right now. We do not > want > > >> >> to make it worse or even take part ourselves. This is clearly > > >> >> destructive. > > >> >> > > >> >> We can play around but then we need to provide alternative path to > be > > >> >> selected, while foundations must remain rock solid, so people have > > >> >> choice. I understand you use free AI to create stuff, but in the > end > > >> >> there are living humans paying bills daily that need to process > that > > >> >> also for free in their free time. > > >> >> > > >> >> My proposition for the people with lots of free time is to create > an > > >> >> experimental but separate AI NuttX rewrite and see how it goes. It > > >> >> should be a win-win scenario where we can cope with basic tasks in > > >> >> NuttX while the other project may explore new worlds. > > >> >> > > >> >> Peace :-) > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
