nuttxpr commented on PR #15765: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15765#issuecomment-2635968256
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No. This PR, as described, does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. Here's why: * **Insufficient Impact Assessment:** Simply stating "N/A" for impact is unacceptable. Even a seemingly simple rename can have impacts. At a minimum, the developer needs to confirm: * **Impact on user:** Will any application code need to be changed due to the config option rename? Even if the answer is no, it needs to be explicitly stated. * **Impact on documentation:** The documentation needs to be updated to reflect the name change. The PR should either include these changes or explain why they are not necessary. * **Impact on compatibility:** Does this change break any backward compatibility? Again, even if the answer is no, it needs to be explicitly stated and justified. * **Insufficient Testing Information:** "sim/sotest" is not enough information. The PR needs to specify: * **Build Host:** What operating system, compiler version, etc. was used to build NuttX? * **Target Details:** What simulator was used (qemu, etc.)? What architecture? What configuration? * **Testing Logs:** The PR includes placeholders for logs, but no actual logs are provided. There needs to be concrete evidence that the change works as intended. What tests were run? What were the results before and after the change? In short, while the summary provides a reasonable explanation for the *why*, the impact and testing sections lack crucial details required for proper review and acceptance. -- 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...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
