Hi Donny, This situation is really sad. I know you and most of your colleagues from Xiaomi and I know you guys contribute because you really like open-source.
Please, ignore everything Sebastien said, he only speaks by himself and this only function here is to criticize. When Matteo requests a testing log, he is just requiring a simple log showing that the code is working properly. Imagine: if even passing all your internal tests some PR is failing the compilation, imagine the execution? We recognize the importance of Xiaomi to our community, NuttX evolved a lot after you guys started contributing. And you want you guys to stay with us! But I agree with Mateusz and it is from The Cathedral and the Bazaar: "release early, release often", it is difficult to develop at closed doors for 1 year and want to submit everything to the mainline in a few weeks. BR, Alan On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 6:58 AM 董九柱 <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Friends of the NuttX Community, > Hello everyone! > We've seen the discussions around AI-generated PRs and our contribution > model, and we don't want to use too many formalities—just want to talk > openly from the heart, even if some words need to be said bluntly. > Xiaomi's investment in NuttX far exceeds what many might imagine. Over the > past period, we've dedicated at least ten times the usual development > effort: not only fixing various low-level bugs, adapting to multiple > hardware platforms, but also proactively developing many core features that > the community needs. Every submitted feature has undergone multiple rounds > of internal verification—our sole goal is to truly make NuttX more powerful > and user-friendly. We're not here to "gain visibility"; we're investing > real resources and manpower, hoping to work with the community to make this > project better. > Regarding the use of AI tools, we want to reiterate: it's never about > "cutting corners." Instead, it's to free up energy from repetitive tasks > like code formatting and routine code completion, so we can focus more on > complex feature design and problem troubleshooting. Even so, we welcome > reasonable review comments and are willing to continuously optimize code > quality. > However, there are situations that truly make us feel wronged and > disappointed: some reviewers' comments often stay on the surface without > deeply understanding the functional design logic, yet they insist on us > submitting various repetitive test code. Some test scenarios have already > been covered, and some tests even go beyond the reasonable scope of the > feature itself. This not only adds unnecessary workload to us but also > slows down the entire contribution process. > Here, we'd like to communicate specifically with @Matteo Golin: we believe > your intention to focus on code quality is good, but there are aspects of > your review work that are hard to accept. You always insist on us providing > test code, even demanding test results and logs strongly related to code > changes, yet it seems you haven't taken the time to truly understand our > code design first. As a reviewer, this is actually irresponsible. We > sincerely hope you can raise questions related to the code changes > themselves—such as suggestions on design logic or implementation > details—rather than repeatedly asking only about test results. The > rationality and correctness of code should first be based on an > understanding of the implementation logic, not merely relying on test > outputs. We hope you can acknowledge this. > In particular, after seeing @Sebastien's reply, many of us on the Xiaomi > team feel both saddened and angry. You said "reducing Xiaomi's > contributions is a good thing" and "avoiding NuttX becoming XiaomiX"—we ask > you: how many patches have you actually contributed to NuttX in the past? > Looking through the community's submission records, we haven't seen any > substantial code contributions from you at all! You haven't participated in > core feature development, nor have you fixed any critical bugs, yet you > stand on the sidelines making such cynical remarks and denying all our hard > work. This truly breaks the hearts of the developers who have been working > diligently. > We respect the community's review rules and appreciate the efforts of all > maintainers, but open-source collaboration should be two-way: we bring > maximum sincerity and effort to contribute—not only proactively investing > resources in developing core features, but also inviting @raiden00pl to > enhance the community's CI/CT capabilities, aiming to align the community's > automated testing system with Xiaomi's internal standards to fundamentally > ensure code quality. In return, we hope to receive more constructive review > feedback: such as comments on core functional design issues instead of > getting stuck on trivial details; recognizing the test work we've already > done instead of mindlessly demanding "more test code." What's more, > regression and code quality shouldn't rely solely on manual review by > reviewers—they need sufficient CI/CT verification as the foundation. And > it's absolutely unacceptable for someone with no substantial contributions > to arbitrarily deny all our efforts and value. > NuttX is not an "exclusive project" of any individual or team. Its growth > requires the joint efforts of all contributors. Xiaomi is willing to > continue investing because we believe in its value and sincerely hope to > work with the community to make it better. We never ask for "special > treatment"—we just want fair and reasonable treatment, so that our efforts > can truly translate into the community's progress, rather than being easily > denied and criticized. > If you have specific, targeted suggestions for our contributions, we will > definitely listen carefully and make active adjustments. But if there's > only pure doubt, prejudice, or irresponsible cynical remarks from those who > haven't contributed anything—it will honestly make us increasingly question > the meaning of continuing to invest. > We hope that in the future, we can have more mutual understanding, more > fact-based communication, and less unnecessary internal friction and > prejudice—working together to make NuttX even better. If mutual respect > cannot be achieved, such collaboration will be difficult to sustain. > Best regards, Donny > > Sebastien Lorquet <[email protected]> 于2026年2月4日周三 17:33写道： > > > Hello again, > > > > I have warned about this problem for YEARS AND YEARS and it happened > > EXACTLY as I had seen. > > > > It is a good thing to be honest, that will reduce the amount of work > > from nuttx maintainers. > > > > If openvela (as I understand) has good features added by xiaomi, it is > > the task of nuttx to upstream them as they wish, in a calm and positive > > way, by taking enough time to think about the design and structure, > > without all the stress and speed of a commercial corporate project. > > > > NuttX is not a commercial project. it has no targets to reach and no > > investors to please. > > > > It is a much nicer way to work and I think it is better like that. > > > > It is a good thing to have less xiaomi contributions forced in nuttx. > > > > I think we can thank them for their past contributions that made nuttx > > grow, but it is also a good thing to realize when it must stop (eg, > > before NuttX becomes XiaomiX). > > > > Sebastien > > > > > > On 2/4/26 10:11, raiden00pl wrote: > > > I think the root cause is completely different. The real problem here > is > > > Xiaomi's > > > attempt to add changes from its entire annual development cycle. Year > of > > > changes > > > from a large development team to an open source community with fewer > than > > > 10 active > > > members. The community is flooded with changes it can't process, and > > Xiaomi > > > is > > > blocked because they can't add further changes based on unmerged > changes. > > > The tension is rising, and we have what we have: a disaster. This > > approach > > > is > > > an obvious recipe for failure. > > > > > > This approach hasn't worked recently, and it's not working now. The > > Xiaomi > > > team > > > is growing much faster than the NuttX community. The number of changes > > from > > > Xiaomi > > > is growing, and it has now reached absurd proportions. > > > If these changes were added gradually, without waiting for the end of > the > > > year, > > > the problem would be much smaller. > > >
