xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #21305: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/21305#issuecomment-6578574340
> > > > > What? No, this family name is again wrong. Official naming convention of Infineon is tc3x and tc4x, there is no "xx". I wanted to review, but when I checked now it's already merged. > > > > > Why there is not enough time given for review at all @xiaoxiang781216 @acassis ? Not everyone is working over the weekend! > > > > > NACK for these from my side! > > > > > > > > > > > > The official document name tc4xx too: https://documentation.infineon.com/aurixtc4xx/docs/ukk1718002103459. tc4xx or tc4x should be fine. > > > > > > > > > NACK! I confirmed this with Infineon when we worked for Zephyr Port [zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr#107516](https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/107516). The officail naming is tc3x and tc4x. It's not yet fully reflected in all the places of Infineon sources and pages. > > > > > > if you think tc3x/tc4x is better than tc3xx/tc4xx, please create patch renaming it. @parthitce > > #19041 was already addressing it and plan is to split. Yes, we can again rebase the cahnges and send another PR. But my question remains, why there is not enough time given for review? It isn't just rebased. I said many time from June that you need split the huge PR into small and reviewable pr, otherwise nobody could review and approve your change. Why do you request the maintainer take time to review the poor-quality PR? -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
