Let's not start new questions for now? Be patient and let's see what other people think. One of the most important rule in ASF is 'community over code', so although I also think accepting patches is the most emergency thing here, but let's see other people's opinion first.
Thanks. David Sidrane <david.sidr...@nscdg.com> 于2019年12月23日周一 下午8:58写道： > 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 > > > > > > >
