Why are you so unwilling to change your opinion?
You are ready to break nuttx just for your comfort, in whatever way it
may take to advance your own agenda. That is very political.
I dont like that.
We need a consensus, and a majority of this thread is against the change
you want to make. So it should be cancelled.
Rememeber this thread is a vote. My vote is No. Close the pull request.
Do another one that has chances to be consensually accepted. Let's vote
again.
I will paste the quote that Greg posted in the thread about the modlib
change:
Rules for voting are a little different for code changes.
The required Apache voting process is
here:https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
For code changes, that document says: "Votes on code modifications follow consensus
approval<https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>. In this scenario, a
negative vote constitutes a veto<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto>, which the
voting group (generally the PMC of a project) cannot override. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy
consensus<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> declaration when the request
for a vote is raised, but the full-stop nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal (non-lazy
consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three +1 votes and no -1 votes in order to pass; if it fails
to garner the requisite amount of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer either withdraws the proposal or
modifies the code and resubmits it, or the proposal simply languishes as an open issue until someone gets
around to removing it."
And "For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but -1
votes are vetos<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto> and kill the
proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
Unless the proposer declares that the vote is using lazy
consensus<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>, three +1
votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
Sebastien
On 09/04/2025 10:20, chao an wrote:
I like your second option, so could we remove the implementation of
both crc16/crc16part interfaces and rename to
crc16xmodem/crc16xmodempart?
BRs,
Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> 于2025年4月9日周三 16:00写道：
Hello,
once again, the number of usage is unimportant and irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matters is that when I call function POOP, it
always does POOP. Not something else.
Because users you are unaware of expect this function to do POOP
and they may not be able to change their code.
If you want different crc functions, use something else.
A better example than the building: the zip format
zip uses adler32 which is not even a proper crc and is largely
suboptimal.
zip developers NEVER changed this in decades, even if they know
it's bad. Why? because otherwise, old zip files would become
completely unusable.
We have the same issue.
The default crc is bad? OK, deal with it. Add better functions.
Document everywhere that the default crc is deprecated and should
not be used because more accurate functions are available.
But dont change the damn thing.
I am against changing the default implementation of the legacy
function silently.
I would be less mad if you REMOVED the old function rather than
silently changing its behaviour. (that would still be bad, however)
Sebastien
On 09/04/2025 05:12, chao an wrote:
I can empathize. But we just don't want to fill this regret again
in the new building.
The lack of standards is currently the biggest issue hindering
the promotion of this proposal.
Another interesting thing, I'd like to share another data from
github:
if we search for the lookup table of crc16 on GitHub, you'll find
that CRC-16/IBM with a higher use rate:
CRC-16/IBM: 3.1k
https://github.com/search?q=%220x0000%2C+0xc0c1%2C+0xc181%2C+0x0140%2C+0xc301%2C+0x03c0%2C+0x0280%2C+0xc241%2C%22&type=code
<https://github.com/search?q=%220x0000%2C+0xc0c1%2C+0xc181%2C+0x0140%2C+0xc301%2C+0x03c0%2C+0x0280%2C+0xc241%2C%22&type=code>
image.png
CRC-16/XMODEM: 304
https://github.com/search?q=%220x0000%2C++0x1021%2C++0x2042%2C++0x3063%2C++0x4084%2C++0x50a5%2C++0x60c6%2C++0x70e7%2C%22&type=code
<https://github.com/search?q=%220x0000%2C++0x1021%2C++0x2042%2C++0x3063%2C++0x4084%2C++0x50a5%2C++0x60c6%2C++0x70e7%2C%22&type=code>
image.png
BRs,
Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> 于2025年4月9日周三 10:52写道：
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 3:45 AM chao an <magicd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 7:17 PM Lwazi Dube
<lwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > An open source project's ability to innovate should
not be
> > > > held up by your preferences.
> > >
> > > The last sentence is completely wrong. Its not about
"preference" but
> > > impacting self-compatibility and long term maintenance.
Messing the
> > > foundations and defaults is not innovation. Try
building a home when
> > > the project constantly changes during the process, when
you have 10
> > > floors ready and suddenly you need to change pavements.
Innovation is
> > > when you create new functionality and give users a
choice without
> > > breaking existing working stuff.
>
> So you think it's more important to maintain your current
10 floors
> building, and it's none of your business if a 100 floors
skyscraper appears
> in the future? so could you afford all the developer time
spent on this
> kind of problem?
Anchao, what I meant was to finish 10 floor building as planned
(development), let people live inside that building
(maintenance), and
move development resources to 100 floor building as planned,
without
changing plans in the middle of construction, not getting
stuck on 10
floor building construction because plans change all the time and
never getting to that 100 floor building. Its good to have solid
immutable tools that you can depend on. Imagine there are devices
already deployed out there that may not be possible to
update, yes
maintenance (in terms of keeping them inter-operational) may
be the
priority in that case, because replacing all devices may wipe
out the
company and leave owner with ubearable financial debt.
I know this CRC is an important and quite hard problem, and I
hope
there can be a win-win solution where users have choice when
they need
one, thank you for bringing this up to the attention.. to be
honest I
have no clue what is the best solution here if there is no
standard to
relay on :-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
