Look for yourself. For the past few years all my NuttX commits are bug
fixes.
You are talking to the wrong guy.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 12:39, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
> There was no diatribe this time. I had the same single argument the
> whole time: for long term self compatibility, we can not change the
> behaviour of existing critical code. That's what matter.
>
> We just added the complete deletion idea later.
>
> The addition of new, well specified CRC routines is very valuable. But
> it does not distract me from the modification of the existing routine.
>
>
> I will never stop fighting for innocent users that don't post on this ml
> and will get silently broken code behind their back. That is a priority
> over contributor satisfaction to see PRs merged.
>
> This is definitely a political (or policy) reason. Another name for this
> is "project management".
>
> We cant just throw any code we like in a large shared project. We're not
> just coding for ourselves at this point.
>
>
> Sebastien
>
>
> On 09/04/2025 17:58, Lwazi Dube wrote:
> > Too late. If I am reading the PR correctly, he has changed the subject
> and
> > we are back to the original default.
> >
> > uint16_t crc16(FAR const uint8_t *src, size_t len)
> > {
> > return crc16xmodempart(src, len, 0);
> > }
> >
> > He fought for a couple of days before giving up. I don't blame him. This
> > suggestion, which is good, should have come at the beginning. The
> preceding
> > diatribe didn't help.
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 10:15, Alan C. Assis <acas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Agree! This will end this discussion! And it will make it clear what
> >> algorithm was used.
> >>
> >> BR,
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
>
