Re: Handling of newbie-oriented fixes

2021-01-05 Thread Grr
Thank you for your response. I'll check that

I also offered a function map to add to your NuttX+Initialization+Sequence
document

Please check https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@nuttx.apache.org/msg05417.html
and let me know if it's useful or how can it be improved to be so

TIA

Grr

El mar, 5 ene 2021 a las 16:31, Brennan Ashton ()
escribió:

> You can still open the PR in GitHub against the NuttX repo (with the extra
> stuff from Peter's repo) , there is a option to select a different repo,
> and we can either cherry pick your change for you or walk you through how
> to do that.
> Feel free to tag me in it @btashton
>
> Thanks for contributing!
>
> --Brennan
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 1:13 PM Grr  wrote:
>
> > I have several commits with fixes related to newbie issues
> >
> > -Avoid compilation crash due to enabling CONFIG_NET without board
> > networking support
> >
> > -Avoid compilation crash due to CONFIG_NET_ICMP_SOCKET missing
> > NET_READAHEAD
> >
> > and so on
> >
> > Problem is I can't make a PR on incubator-nuttx because my fork is not
> from
> > it but from Peter van der Perk's fork
> >
> > What would be the best way to handle this without bothering Peter to
> > process every one of my fixes?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Grr
> >
>


Re: Handling of newbie-oriented fixes

2021-01-05 Thread Brennan Ashton
You can still open the PR in GitHub against the NuttX repo (with the extra
stuff from Peter's repo) , there is a option to select a different repo,
and we can either cherry pick your change for you or walk you through how
to do that.
Feel free to tag me in it @btashton

Thanks for contributing!

--Brennan

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 1:13 PM Grr  wrote:

> I have several commits with fixes related to newbie issues
>
> -Avoid compilation crash due to enabling CONFIG_NET without board
> networking support
>
> -Avoid compilation crash due to CONFIG_NET_ICMP_SOCKET missing
> NET_READAHEAD
>
> and so on
>
> Problem is I can't make a PR on incubator-nuttx because my fork is not from
> it but from Peter van der Perk's fork
>
> What would be the best way to handle this without bothering Peter to
> process every one of my fixes?
>
> TIA
>
> Grr
>


Re: Handling of newbie-oriented fixes

2021-01-05 Thread Maciej Wójcik
Just fork again from main nuttx repository, to satisfy github. Then a)
manually put yout changes back and commit, or b) add your current fork as
additional remote, and get your commits from there. If fork doesn't have
changes, you can pull it. Otherwise you might try to cherry pick.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021, 22:14 Grr,  wrote:

> I have several commits with fixes related to newbie issues
>
> -Avoid compilation crash due to enabling CONFIG_NET without board
> networking support
>
> -Avoid compilation crash due to CONFIG_NET_ICMP_SOCKET missing
> NET_READAHEAD
>
> and so on
>
> Problem is I can't make a PR on incubator-nuttx because my fork is not from
> it but from Peter van der Perk's fork
>
> What would be the best way to handle this without bothering Peter to
> process every one of my fixes?
>
> TIA
>
> Grr
>


Handling of newbie-oriented fixes

2021-01-05 Thread Grr
I have several commits with fixes related to newbie issues

-Avoid compilation crash due to enabling CONFIG_NET without board
networking support

-Avoid compilation crash due to CONFIG_NET_ICMP_SOCKET missing NET_READAHEAD

and so on

Problem is I can't make a PR on incubator-nuttx because my fork is not from
it but from Peter van der Perk's fork

What would be the best way to handle this without bothering Peter to
process every one of my fixes?

TIA

Grr


CFP: WFIoT Industry Fora

2021-01-05 Thread Dave Marples

Folks,

This might be an interesting place to have NuttX get-together. If anyone 
has any interest in organising something then please drop me a note.


Regards

DAVE




IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things

20-24 June 2021, New Orleans + Virtual


*Call for participation in Industry Fora
*

*Deadline 15th Jan 2021*

The Internet of Things has transitioned from trials and demonstrations 
to accelerating deployments across industry and the public sector.  It 
has been driven by any number of spectacular innovations from commercial 
organizations, university research groups and the maker community.  User 
acceptance of network connected devices varies widely but actual 
deployments have certainly demonstrated commercial viability that is now 
driving R investment and new product announcements on a weekly basis.


While such developments are certainly to be celebrated, there are 
warning signs too. Some of the IoT devices that have reached the market 
have been insecure or have exposed users, or their networks, to risk and 
privacy violation, and some have been permanently disabled when the 
suppliers business objectives have changed. Further, McKinsey, in a 
recent study, indicated that over 50% of IoT deployment projects have 
failed. These events have had significant media coverage and they 
present a reputational risk to the IoT with the potential for attendant 
negative consequences for acceptance of the IoT in the wider community.


It is therefore essential that there are open fora for the exchange of 
innovation, experience and challenges among all members of the IoT 
community. Without such fora best practice cannot be established, 
proposals for standards cannot germinate, researchers cannot be directed 
and early mistakes in product deployment relating to reliability, user 
experience, availability, performance and security will all be repeated 
many times over. Worst of all, the promise of IoT may be lost because 
end users do not trust the technology or its proponents.


To address these issues there will be an Industry Forum, as part of the 
2021 IEEE World Forum on the Internet of Things as part of its technical 
program. This forum is intended for industrialists, academics and makers 
and is intended to encourage a dialog and active and vigorous exchange 
between all stakeholders to address exactly these issues. The format for 
the Forum is principally as a face to face event, with the possibility 
of remote participation if COVID-19 circumstances dictate. In the 
limiting case it will be conducted virtually.  The Forum is planned as a 
series of panels, each devoted to a specific aspect of IoT, conducted as 
an open and collegiate exchange of information with the objectives to:


    * Understand the limitations of current IoT knowledge to guide 
future research topics
    * Share best practice for commercial IoT development, deployment 
and maintenance so early mistakes are not repeated many times over
    * Highlight the risks that the IoT can expose so that these can be 
mitigated and avoided
    * Create networks of excellence across the academic, maker and 
commercial communities to jointly push forward the boundaries of IoT science
    * Reduce the knowledge transfer barriers between the academic, 
maker and industrial communities


Panel presentation will be published after the event on the WF-IoT 2021 
conference web site. Attendees are encouraged to form informal networks 
post event and the open sharing of contact information for that purpose 
will be highly encouraged.


Structure
==

An Industry Forum track may take the form of a talk, an invited 
presentation, panels or demonstrations around a targeted topic. The 
forum chairs will determine the exact format of each  track based on the 
proposals received. Proposers should expect discussions with the track 
chairs following submission of their initial proposal to hone their 
proposition.


Proposers are particularly encouraged to suggest thematic sessions that 
will be of interest to multiple stakeholder groups across the IoT 
community.  Proposals that can act as ‘kickstart’ initiatives with the 
potential to lead to ongoing collaboration will be particularly well 
received.   It is planned to form multiple (3 to 6) tracks in the 
Industry Forum.


Submission Instructions
===

Due to the breadth of opportunity the Industrial Forum presents a 
proposal for participation should be submitted in prose form. The 
submission should contain, as a minimum, the name of the submitter and 
any affiliation, the intended audience and objectives of the session. 
Further, it should contain an abstract together with information about 
the scope, any prior activity in the subject area and a brief 
biographical outline of the intended session leaders/presenters. Other 
information may be submitted as appropriate to support the proposal. 
Proposers may approach