+1 let is as it is :)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022, 20:23 Tomek CEDRO, wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 8:20 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >
> > On 11/20/2022 1:18 PM, Tim Hardisty wrote:
> > > Might I humbly suggest that "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?
> > >
> > > Just stick with the names already in use
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 8:20 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
> On 11/20/2022 1:18 PM, Tim Hardisty wrote:
> > Might I humbly suggest that "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?
> >
> > Just stick with the names already in use (minus the incubator, as will
> > happen anyway). Just tried searching the Apache
On 11/20/2022 1:18 PM, Tim Hardisty wrote:
Might I humbly suggest that "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?
Just stick with the names already in use (minus the incubator, as will happen anyway).
Just tried searching the Apache website for "RTOS" and NuttX is top of the
list; searching the Apach
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 8:02 PM Nathan Hartman wrote:
> Okay, I did that, and I have received responses from Infra that are
> quite helpful:
>
> (1) Infra requires repos to be named ${project}-${reponame} because of
> technical reasons related to LDAP. (This was not previously documented,
> but a n
Might I humbly suggest that "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?
Just stick with the names already in use (minus the incubator, as will happen
anyway). Just tried searching the Apache website for "RTOS" and NuttX is top of
the list; searching the Apache GitHub repositories similarly and NuttX is
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 9:46 AM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> Could we simplify the options before a vote be discussing the
> possibilities that you have listed with INFRA?
Okay, I did that, and I have received responses from Infra that are
quite helpful:
(1) Infra requires repos to be named ${project}-
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 9:46 AM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
> On 11/20/2022 6:21 AM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > ...
> > Are we ready to call a [VOTE] thread or does anyone have more
> > input/arguments/suggestions?
> > ...
>
> Good job, Nathan. I think you have summarized the options and issues well.
>
On 11/20/2022 6:21 AM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
...
Are we ready to call a [VOTE] thread or does anyone have more
input/arguments/suggestions?
...
Good job, Nathan. I think you have summarized the options and issues well.
Could we simplify the options before a vote be discussing the
possibiliti
The discussion has two aspects: (1) delimiter, and (2) name for the main repo.
I studied all the feedback from this thread and found that there were
5 suggested delimiter styles:
* hyphen (e.g., nuttx-apps)
* underscore (e.g., nuttx_apps)
* subdirectory (e.g., nuttx/rtos, nuttx/apps)
* none (e.g.
+1 for nuttx and nuttx-apps
V čet., 17. nov. 2022 22:47 je oseba Nathan Hartman <
hartman.nat...@gmail.com> napisala:
> Hi all,
>
> As mentioned in the other thread, the repos need to be renamed to
> remove "incubating".
>
> In the discussion from a few months ago [1] several reasons were given
>
Thanks Alan
I'm doing some tests with Freertos to see the mechanism behind microROS,
but my idea is to get the old example described here
https://github.com/micro-ROS/micro_ros_nuttx_app
and try to rewrite the test to work again with humble and galactic +
NuttX-11
I'll give you feedback as
Hi Roberto,
Nice to see your interest in using NuttX with ROS2.
I think the guy that was working on NuttX and ROS (the first MicroROS
was based on NuttX) went out to work on other things. We need to find
someone to help to fix it.
If you are interested to get it working again I offer to help you
Hi Zou,
You don't feel sorry, all suggestions are welcome.
Since you aren't aware of that previous discussion it was a honest mistake!
Initally NuttX didn't have an apps/ directory, it became part of NuttX
when the support to build-in applications was included and in fact the
initial apps/ repos
13 matches
Mail list logo
