Hello,
I believe in a stong principle, applied successfully numerous time in my
embedded development company:
It it's not broken, dont fix it.
That applies precisely to this change.
The build system we have have the following characteristics
-it works for its intended purposes
-it is pretty complex
-ALL USERS have become used to it
Changing it
- will bring a lot of new bugs
- along with the annoying feeling that these bugs were not necessary in
the first place
- No one will understand the build system anymore
- since makefiles are now generated, we rely on yet another external
tool with bugs in itself, and its idiosyncrasies and workarounds.
Moreover:
-the doc about nuttx is not hosted by the nuttx project, so 99 % of the
nuttx documentation will become fully obsolete overnight.
Gratuitous changes are a hell, they destroy efficiency.
They tend to appear more frequently in open source projects, because
anyone can bring it change without a single damn given to customer since
the code has no warranty of fitness of etc etc open source legalese.
If it was me, I would not do this change. If I had to take a decision
about something similar in my company, it would be a strong no.
Sebastien
Le 09/06/2021 à 14:57, Matias N. a écrit :
Hi everyone,
this thread has received little engagement from the community
in general, for a change with such impact on daily use of NuttX
for everyone.
While there was positive feedback on GH and a few people have
expressed more interest, not much has really happened. Meanwhile,
the backlog of changes that would need to be backported continues
to increase.
At the same time, I see many PRs addressing subtle issues with
current build system, which are mostly already solved with the migration
to CMake. So there's continued effort in maintaining the current system
which could be in part dedicated to the migration to a better system.
I have offered technical guidance on testing and extending to other
platforms and also to add base support for other arch's so that the focus
can be put mostly at the board level and on test and validation on different
platforms and target hardware. However, after having worked on this
for more than a month I feel this is not really picking up the interest it
requires for proper adoption by the community.
Maybe the proper approach would be to call on a vote (*)
for this feature to have explicit support from the community and
ensure involvement from others than me to move forward.
Otherwise, or if the vote does not pass, I will not be pushing forward with
this.
(*) As a commiter (non-PPMC member), I'm not sure if I can formally call on
a vote and what the exact procedure is, but maybe other PPMC member
can do so.
Best,
Matias
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 15:05, Nathan Hartman wrote:
I am interested and I'll try to help with boards I can test. It will take a
few days to get around to it because this has been a busy month, but I'm
catching up.
Cheers
Nathan
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:25 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis <acas...@gmail.com
<mailto:acassis%40gmail.com>>
wrote:
I think we can divide the effort to port all the boards to the new CMake.
I can start take care of ESP32, ESP32-C3 and ESP32-S2.
Let see if we get more people involved in this effort.
BR,
Alan
On 6/1/21, Matias N. <mat...@imap.cc <mailto:matias%40imap.cc>> wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to add that until this is ready, the gap between master and
the
branch
widens with every merged PR and this increases the backporting effort.
I'm willing to do most of the remaining work but as I mentioned I cannot
possibly test everything so
help is needed.
I'd really like your feedback on this before I continue and ensure the
effort will not go to waste.
Best,
Matias
On Sat, May 29, 2021, at 14:06, Matias N. wrote:
Hi,
for anyone not following the relevant PR, please have a look at the
current state here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/3704
This is now at a point where it can be tested by others. It would be
very
good to get some
help testing what I got so far (sim and stm32f4discovery, both on Linux
and mac), by running
examples and test. There are some brief instructions at the end of the
PR
description for building.
Other than that, I can continue porting other arch's and boards with the
help of CI but it would be
best if others with more boards could help testing (and ideally with
some
PRs, as the hard part
is mostly done) those as well.
Also, note that this is a PR against a branch so we could eventually
merge
it before adding support
for other arch/boards. And finally, I will provide documentation to the
new build system in a separate
PR at some point, which I hope will ease the transition and help
reviewing.
Best,
Matias
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, at 18:43, Xiang Xiao wrote:
A new issue is opened recently to address this topic:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/3455
This proposal has the depth of the impact in our daily working, so it's
very important to get the feedback from the community before the real
action is taken.
If you have any concern or suggestion, please reply to this email.
Thanks
Xiang
