This whole thread really bums me out. We really should be assuming people are acting with best intentions, rather than accusing of ulterior motives. If there are changes that you have concerns about people tend to be very reasonable about explaining and if we need to revert something or change something, that's fine too.
Tossing around ideas on the mailing list is totally fine, but when it comes to reviewing code I don't see anything wrong with that happening in PR reviews next to the code. And to be honest using Issues is also a much much more pleasant experience. If you want the mailing list experience you can still get that by clicking subscribe (which is what I do to get the open flood gates of content). There is also the commit mailing list that does archive all of that content. People have been better about tagging things that may be breaking changes, but things do slip though. This was even the case when Greg reviewed all code. And sometimes things were reverted, sometimes not. What I would like to see is that people put a little bit of though into the testing box. For example Lup does an excellent job with this https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/7944 We are still growing as a project and people being more active in the review process will go a long way, but we need the people to do that. While I have not committed much code in sometime, I still try to scan through the PRs in my inbox for content of interest. --Brennan On Wed, Mar 8, 2023, 7:54 AM Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote: > I tend to disagree. > > > You have extreme views that all commits need to be discussed. That is > false. > > What need to be discussed is much subtle. > > We need to have discussion whenever ANYONE has a doubt about something > that is happening on github BEFORE this is committed. > > Xiaomi (and other companies, but xiaomi is very representative of this) > would have more reviewers if commits that ACTUALLY need reviews were > discussed on the list. > > I have done so every time I planned to push more than trivial code. > > But they dont do so, and have no wish to do so, because they want to > move fast. I know this when I developed a crypto API. I was contacted by > Xiaomi for questions and requests because I was too slow. Then they took > it from me and made it their own way and merged it without me. That is > not right. As a consequence I stopped doing anything on this topic. > Future TLS and smart card work coming in 2023 (finally funded) will be > kept private unless things change drastically. > > > Nathan said it much better than me, we NEED to know the roadmap of all > companies who want to push any amount of code to nuttx, and this HAS to > be done publicly. > > > > At this point I am considering this project has no wish to follow the > Apache foundation rules, and is actively violating them using false > justifications. > > > > Calling out people like me and asking for more contribution instead of > complaining is NOT RIGHT. > > I am using NuttX in my company, I fix the bugs I find and I submit the > useful contributions. > > I am not paid to contribute to NuttX. I am paid to develop products that > use NuttX, and as a consequence I make it work when needed. > > I have no plans to be a maintainer for this project, more so given the > current conditions. > > But as a user, I have the right to say that current maintenance is not > right. > > > Sebastien > > > Le 08/03/2023 à 15:54, Alan C. Assis a écrit : > > > Sebastien, > > > > If all the discussions that happens on github start to happen here, > > this mailing list will be just like the nuttx-commits mailing list. > > > > So, your point is a catch 22! (dilemma)... You are against using > > github and against have a mailing list with huge email messages. > > > > Also you cannot complain that more than 90% of commits are coming from > Xiaomi. > > > > And the only reason that many PRs are approved and merged by Xiaomi > > people is because we don't have enough reviewers to help. > > > > So, instead complain that the route is going to wrong direction, start > > to help to construct the route, simple like that! > > > > > > Also, what you can do as a NuttX advocate is ask the semiconductor > > company used on your project to support NuttX. > > > > If they don't agree, move for some semiconductor company that are > > contributing to NuttX (Espressif, Sony, NXP, etc). > > > > BR, > > > > Alan > > > > On 3/8/23, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote: > >> I dont think your point of view is very realistic. You seem to be > >> turning the situation into something that pleases you but is not really > >> compatible with what can be observed from outside. > >> > >> In the archive for 2023 there are 2035 topics, I just overlooked more > >> than 600 of them and ALL of them are just copies of github messages. And > >> this is normal, because this is unusable. > >> > >> Also, I cannot actively review ALL the hundreds of pull requests that > >> are regularly sent by large companies. > >> > >> I am primarily a user, that sometimes sends small contributions. > >> > >> And I am unhappy when I see that other people were careless with nice > >> code and do whatever they want for their own agenda without any > >> consideration for other users. > >> > >> To be honest I dont fully understand why SO MANY changes are required to > >> core OS features that should be stable. > >> > >> There need to be some triage when a new pull request is sent, its > >> severity evaluated by someone who is NOT in the company of the original > >> contributor, and if severe, it has to be approved on the mailing list. I > >> cannot do that alone, even if I try. > >> > >> At this point do you realize that more than !~90ish% of changes seem to > >> come from xiaomi developers and most of these are approved by xiaoxiang > >> alone? > >> > >> Because this HAS to be said. They send overwhelming numbers > >> contributions that cannot be possibly understood as a whole, there is no > >> clear agenda, they add whatever they like with no roadmap and no review > >> from other users that may have other uses. > >> > >> This has to be under control somehow. I believe even you Alan are not > >> aware of the amount of code that enters nuttx. No one can be now. > >> > >> Sebastien > >> > >> > >> Le 08/03/2023 à 14:39, Alan C. Assis a écrit : > >>> Hi Sebastien, > >>> > >>> Yes, that commit list is mostly for people who don't want to use > >>> github but still wanting to see what is going on. > >>> > >>> Sometimes when a very important PR raises some concern on GitHub PR, > >>> people post their concern he, it already happened many times. > >>> > >>> But again: the best way to guarantee that current changes please you > >>> is to keep actively reviewing the PRs and contributing to the project. > >>> > >>> BR, > >>> > >>> Alan > >>> > >>> On 3/8/23, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I had a look and this mailing list is not made for human consumption. > >>>> > >>>> No one has ever sent a message on it manually, right? > >>>> > >>>> In practice, important changes are still NOT discussed on the DEV > >>>> mailing list. > >>>> > >>>> You said yourself that "all development has moved to github". > >>>> > >>>> As soon as automated tests are passed, every commit is considered > with a > >>>> similar level of importance, however this is clearly not the case. > >>>> > >>>> Sebastien > >>>> > >>>> Le 08/03/2023 à 13:21, Alan C. Assis a écrit : > >>>>> HI Sebastien, > >>>>> > >>>>> It is already done, you just need to subscribe to > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@nuttx.apache.org to > receive > >>>>> all commits messages and discussions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Everything is archived on apache side! > >>>>> > >>>>> BR, > >>>>> > >>>>> Alan > >>>>> > >>>>> On 3/8/23, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote: > >>>>>> Apache projects are required to use mailing lists for long term > >>>>>> archival > >>>>>> purposes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It seems to me that this project is avoiding that rule and moved all > >>>>>> development to github > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is in contradiction with the Apache project rules. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I request clarification on this situation and requirement (instead > of > >>>>>> just asserting it), including a review by the apache boards. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If it is proved that development happens primarily in github and not > >>>>>> here I will request the following: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -every people committing patches and submitting pull request to be > >>>>>> registered on the mailing list so they are able to reply to > questions > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -forwarding of all pull requests traffic to the mailing list > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For two reasons: (1) Archival purposes, and (2) open discussions > with > >>>>>> members that follow Apache Foundation mailing list rules and do not > >>>>>> take > >>>>>> part in github. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sebastien > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
