Hehehe, believe me, sometimes technical decisions are decided not by technical people, but by some high level boss that will consider things like version numbers.
I'm not superstitious (neither religious, I'm agnostic), but I know some people and companies will avoid this version release :-D There are examples in the industry about it, I think the most notable example is Suse Linux Enterprise: https://www.theregister.com/2018/06/25/suse_linux_enterprise_15/ I think an option is include in the Summary: Release for Testing v13.0.0 (or transition release, etc) BR, Alan On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:22 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> wrote: > No one serious will avoid NuttX because it's version 13. Let's be > serious, this > is a community of engineers, not stock market traders. Don't waste time > discussing superstitions, because it's starting to look like AI bots > discussion ;) > > czw., 19 lut 2026 o 15:12 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > But it will make it difficult to get their patches integrated into the > > mainline, since 12.x to 13.x will have a big difference. > > > > NuttX 12.0.0 was released on 2023-01-16, more than 3 years ago, so I > > suppose if we follow the same logic, users that decided to use an old > > version could be using a version from more than 3 years ago. > > > > We already have many issues in the project to worry about, having users > > avoiding using NuttX just because it has a 13.x release is something I > > think we can skip, we can avoid! :-) > > > > BR, > > > > Alan > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:00 AM Alin Jerpelea <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > such separation will be hard to maintain and will produce confusion > > > > > > I think that it is better to have 13.xx.xx released on the normal cycle > > and > > > let users decide if they use the "stable 12.xx.xx releases" or the "new > > > 13.xx.xx" > > > I can add a Note to the release notes to clarify that 13.0.0 may need > > some > > > releases to shine > > > > > > Best regards > > > Alin > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 2:45 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I think LTS is not the way to go. > > > > > > > > But I agree with Tomek to keep version 13 as internal usage only, not > > for > > > > final users and companies. > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 10:28 AM Alin Jerpelea <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > With the resources available we can not start a LTS track > > > > > I propose that we continue using, for now, the same release > procedure > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > Alin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 1:57 PM raiden00pl <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > LTS was discussed on this list earlier, and the conclusion was > that > > > the > > > > > > project > > > > > > didn't have the resources to maintain LTS release. I don't think > > > > anything > > > > > > has > > > > > > changed since then in terms of resources available (or should I > say > > > > it's > > > > > > worse now?), > > > > > > so bringing LTS release idea into this discussion doesn't make > much > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > czw., 19 lut 2026 o 13:44 Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could resemble FreeBSD organization to match progressive > > and > > > > > > > conservative crowd: > > > > > > > 1. CURRENT is the master experimental branch (i.e. 13-CURRENT). > > > > > > > 2. STABLE is well tested and not breaking branch (i.e. > > 12-STABLE). > > > > > > > 3. RELEASE is snapshot of STABLE in time marked with number > > branch > > > > > > > (i.e. 12.12-RELEASE). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When CURRENT gets mature it goes STABLE (branch), bumps number > > and > > > > > > > starts experimenting (branch) again. STABLE gets updates and > > fixes > > > > > > > from CURRENT, but it also serves as source for RELEASE (branch) > > > from > > > > > > > time to time. If you need some fix from STABLE but you use > > RELEASE > > > > you > > > > > > > can build it safely.. except release is also tied to some tools > > > > > > > packages etc. Stability here in terms of API. Plus "compat" > layer > > > > that > > > > > > > provides cross-version ABI compatibility (i.e. 10.0 binary > works > > > fine > > > > > > > on 14.3). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.freebsd.org/releng/ > > > > > > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/freebsd-releng/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may sound fun but still a lot of maintenance work for a > small > > > > > > > team.. maybe too much.. or just some inspiration :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 1:17 PM Alan C. Assis < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a good idea! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The number 13 could be like a transition (passage) version, > it > > > > could > > > > > be > > > > > > > > considered a breaking version, before the final version > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this version we will have the chance to improve the boot > > > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > and other things, i.e.: currently we have the common boards > > that > > > > have > > > > > > > > drivers shared in the same chip family, but it is possible to > > > > extend > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > idea to have these drivers working for all chips. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:07 AM Tomek CEDRO < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I also know some people in person that avoid 13 at all > > > cost > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > quite funny.. but for me 13 is kinda lucky even if in a > > > different > > > > > > > > > way.. we may consider 13 internal testing and then just go > > 14.. > > > > > > > > > whatever :D :D :D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:44 PM Alan C. Assis < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree! Also we need to decide whether to use the number > > 13 > > > or > > > > > > will > > > > > > > skip > > > > > > > > > > it! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Historically it is proved that this number is not good > > luck, > > > > even > > > > > > > NASA > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > tried to insist on it (what could go wrong, NASA has the > > > > smartest > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > the planet), that resulted in a catastrophic event that > > > almost > > > > > > ended > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > with the life of 3 persons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, maybe I'll writing it as a joke, but imagine someone > > > > > > considering > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > NuttX, if they have any doubt they will not use NuttX 13 > > for > > > > > sure! > > > > > > > :-D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I vote for NuttX 14 :-D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 8:22 AM Tomek CEDRO < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not rush with the 13 and keep it for time when > > most > > > > > > > breaking > > > > > > > > > > > things are settled and we could call it first LTS > > release, > > > > > until > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > stick to 12 and small improvements in minor releases, > > but I > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > follow the community voice :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 7:23 AM Alin Jerpelea < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matteo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will fork the next release branch on 1st of March > so > > > that > > > > > we > > > > > > > have 1 > > > > > > > > > > > month > > > > > > > > > > > > to test the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose that we name this release 13.0.0 and we put > > all > > > > > > planned > > > > > > > > > > > breacking > > > > > > > > > > > > changes in the new release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Alin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2026, 06:47 Matteo Golin, < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have decided to work on tackling this issue: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/11321 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crux of it is: many boards rely on NSH to > > > initialize > > > > > > > > > > > > > peripherals/board-level systems. This is done > through > > > the > > > > > > > > > user-space > > > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > > > > to boardctl(BOARDIOC_INIT). However, > > > > BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > same thing. This is confusing for many users and > also > > > > > results > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > boards > > > > > > > > > > > > > having out-of-sync init methods (i.e. late_init > does > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > than app_init, but they shouldn't). To simplify the > > > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce user confusion, the suggestion was to > > completely > > > > > > remove > > > > > > > > > > > > > BOARDIOC_INIT/board_app_initialize and NSH_ARCHINIT > > in > > > > > favour > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE. This is a massive breaking > > > change > > > > > and > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > to-do list for 13.0.0 but it hadn't been picked up > > yet > > > > and > > > > > > > we're > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > time for 13.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a draft PR open here to the kernel with most > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > boards > > > > > > > > > > > adhering > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the new changes: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18408 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here to the apps repo removing references to > > > > > > BOARDIOC_INIT > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > NSH_ARCHINIT: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3405 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These PRs are large, introduce breaking changes, > and > > > > touch > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > boards (not all of which I am able to test on my > > > limited > > > > > > > hardware > > > > > > > > > > > set). I > > > > > > > > > > > > > would appreciate eyes on these PRs to see if there > > are > > > > any > > > > > > > flaws > > > > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial approach and also in case anyone would like > > to > > > > > > > volunteer to > > > > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > > > the changes on some hardware (I don't own anything > > with > > > > an > > > > > > > STM32 > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CI is also going to report a lot of errors due > to > > > the > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > across both repositories (and they will be out of > > sync > > > > with > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the CI runs), hence the importance of testing :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback in advance (and maybe your > > > time > > > > > > > testing > > > > > > > > > if you > > > > > > > > > > > > > can!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
