That's quite a weird approach. You find a bug in their codebase, but
they won't merge the fix because of the discussion unrelated to the
issue you fixed. To be honest, I see this as an argument for the
independence of 3rd part repositories we can't (at least partially) control.
Michal
On 9/29/26 01:23, Felipe Moura Oliveira wrote:
Hi all,
Just to bring this to your attention: on my recent PR to esp-hal-3rdparty,
an Espressif employee commented stating that support is paused until the
ongoing governance discussions are resolved.
Best regards,
*--Felipe Moura de Oliveira*
Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2026 at 10:35 Felipe Moura Oliveira <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi all,
Following the recent discussion in the thread “Early feedback on RZ/V2H
port and RZ FSP HAL dependency”, I would like to suggest applying the same
idea discussed there to existing vendor HAL dependencies: hosting them
under github.com/NuttX, while keeping them separate from the ASF
repositories. This proposal is aligned with some opinions shared there.
A practical example is esp-hal-3rdparty. I recently opened a very small
fix there:
https://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty/pull/15
The PR is still open without Espressif review. Interestingly, the
technical feedback so far came from Laczen, a NuttX contributor who is not
part of Espressif.
This illustrates the issue when NuttX depends on a vendor repository but
the vendor is temporarily unavailable to maintain or review it.
Would it make sense to move esp-hal-3rdparty, and potentially similar
vendor HAL repositories, under github.com/NuttX, with vendor maintainers
when available but NuttX committers retaining the ability to review and
maintain them when necessary?
Best regards,
*--Felipe Moura de Oliveira*
Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0>
