vrahane commented on pull request #2686: URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/pull/2686#issuecomment-928085364
@andrzej-kaczmarek I have a few thoughts of my own on this: - We should not restrict support for anything because its for profit/non-profit, that is really not what open source is all about. People should be free to use what they want. If the code is open, it is open source and in this case the SDK code is open. If somebody wants to write tools to utilize the SDK, that's their call. Mynewt is an open source RTOS and adds support and code for the OS and services in the OS, should not be caring about how it gets utilized on the other side. - We should also cater to changing needs of the demographic, if today people are using something, we need to make them aware that it is being supported. We do not have a dedicated marketing effort going on in mynewt. Don't you think we should do things that promote mynewt. Adding memfault as a utility does not really make us liable for support for it, that is maintained by the SDK. MCUmgr is our official device management protocol and will always remain. What we are doing here is showing that other device management protocol/services also work with mynewt, it's not just MCUmgr. I do understand your point but it is a very narrow thought process and I do not agree with it. Please try to understand the bigger picture. How do people get end -> end device management using mynewt ? Either ways @t3zeng has gone ahead and done his part and opened up a new PR with what you want. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/pull/2687 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@mynewt.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
