Hi Duo, Well said and I am all for it.
Two questions: 1 Who will apply the patches? 2 Can we use and merge a PR that has been reviewed? David -----Original Message----- From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) [mailto:palomino...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 4:35 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simple Workflow Proposal For our Chinese people we do not think starting working when the requirements are not very clear is a big risk, this is what happens every day here. You can not plan everything so just have a try, if it does not work then just drop it and retry, no harm :) And in my experience, if we can not agree on something, and seems the direction of the conversation is not going to solve the problem, then we should stop, and try to make consensus on something else, maybe on a higher level, or a precondition of the current problem. If we can not even make a consensus then we do not need to talk any more, honestly. And back to the discussion here, I think we all agree that, we want the NuttX project to be successful right? Everyone here just wants to help, let’s be friendly to each other. And second, what is the most emergency problem for now? I do not think it is the workflow. We can not accept new patches, this is the biggest problem I think. And since it is Christmas so as Greg said maybe we can delay it for two weeks, but anyway it will still be the biggest problem after we come back from Christmas(OK I need to say that we Chinese people do not have Christmas holidays...). Do we really need a new workflow for accepting patches? I do not think so, now the only difference is that the code has been moved from bitbucket to github, so follow the old workflow is an option I’d say. Let’s do things step by step. Anyway, I think we should make a consensus first, if we all agree that accepting new patches is the most emergency problem for now, then we can start to talk the further actions. If not, let’s first define the problem. We really need to start from a consensus. My two cents. Thanks. Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com>于2019年12月23日 周一10:02写道： > > > But the #1 most critical thing facing this project is adopting even > > just the requirements for the workflow. None of the other issues have > > any significant importance > > > > So I have to be opposed to any obstacles that jeopardize or distract > > from the #1 priority thing. > > One of the dangers of delaying the workflow requirements is that there > are people actually developing workflow components now ... WITHOUT any > requirements!!! Pull unadulterated rogue behavior. There is a great risk > of just have some workflow foisted upon us with no ability by the PPMC > to guide or monitor. > > We will be giving away our right to define the workflow it we do not > make progress on the workflow requirements. Yet another rogue workflow > will be forced on us. > > I think we must decline any attempts to do commit unapproved workflow > components. We must not allow any workflow to be put into place without > the concurrence of the PPMC. We give our concurrence only by agreeing > to a set of workflow requirements then enforcing those requirements. > > Greg > > >
