I don't think anchao formally rejected the PR (i.e. stated rejection), just had a lot of pushback. I think based on the rest of the community's response to nxinit, most everyone would like this feature to be merged.
I think these PRs should be reopened so that we have the chance to give them approval. If anchao still rejects the PR, that is their right, but the community vote decides if it gets merged or not anyways, not an individual. The saying goes "talk is cheap, send patches". A lot of the concern stems from having another init system to solve the NSH init coupling to the system shell from what I can read. But if people really want a two-stage init approach on NSH, they need to send patches. This unit problem has been discussed on NuttX for a long time now and this is the first PR I've seen doing anything about it. NSH can be improved later if so desired. Like others have mentioned, this is a NuttX app which is completely optional, no one is being forced to use anything. On the contrary, people are forced into using NSH for init currently unless they roll their own initialization. Matteo On Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 8:03 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> wrote: > nuttx-apps has always been a collection of useful applications and libs for > users. Nothing in this repo is mandatory, it's completely optional. I don't > see > any reason why we should give up from nxinit in nuttx-apps. What's more, I > see > this as a big loss for the project. > > Having a repository like nuttx-apps is a big advantage of NuttX. This gives > us more freedom in what we can keep there than if the apps were part of > the nuttx kernel repo. So we don't have to look for a perfect solution, > which probably doesn't exist anyway. > > wt., 28 paź 2025 o 12:20 Michał Łyszczek <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > On 2025-10-28 11:54:33, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: > > > > > The nuttx-apps directory already contains many apps whose value is much > > more > > > dubious/discussable than this nxinit thing. > > > > > > Following these events Xiao Xiang got understandably fed up and has > > > retracted all pull requests related to this project. > > > > > > I wonder what is the opinion of the community about this issue. > > > > > > Should we vote about the integration of this new app? > > > > I'd say nuttx-apps should be treated like package/ dir in buildroot. You > > want an app that is useful to you? You just prepare make file and kconfig > > to > > integrate it and push it. If code is not in nuttx repo, that is Makefile > > just downloads .tar.gz from the net and unpacks it - it doesn't even have > > to > > follow nuttx code convention. > > > > I myself have added few apps like that. App only contains Makefile and > > Kconfig > > and code is downloaded from the internet. There was never any problem > with > > pushing such apps. And I believe I am the only person that uses them :) > > > > So in my opinion, that nxinit should be totally allowed to be added to > > apps. > > It's useful to someone. It's 100% optional. It's not default. It does not > > break > > anything. Hence it should be added without any votes as long as it > follows > > the > > rules. Even if such app benefits only a single person. > > >
