[TEST] Joined

[TEST] Joined Hi Group, Is this thing live yet? *David Sidrane* *david.sidr...@gmail.com *

[Test] Joined

[Test] Joined Is it alive? David

RE: State of Bitbucket Repsitories

The history will be intact no matter where it is. It will remain BSD until the license changes. The change should be on a branch than a single commit. Then it is a knife edge -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:44 AM To:

Workflow and Release strategy Proposal (Was RE: Project Emails)

Precisely! We cut a branch as a Release Candidate. nuttx-MM.mm.rr-rcnn. During the release cycle it can have back ports from master if a new feature or bug fix is found it is added if deemed necessary to the release. Workflow Proposal I would ask that we adopt a workflow similar to PX4. [1] -

RE: Project Emails

How about sub modules? We atomically tag across both to keep the project in proper synchronization. David -Original Message- From: Nathan Hartman [mailto:hartman.nat...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 10:55 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Project Emails On Thu, Dec

Atomic git tagging (was RE: Project Emails)

Greg, I think the below steps will do a an atomic tag/branch (Branch protections may be needed as well) However, it exemplifies why Submodules are evil but useful. A much simpler approach is 2 folder is the same project - I am aware of ALL the arguments - I agree with most of them but there are

Point of order.

Point of order. Recognizing that using the ASF mailing list is all new to some of us. I would like to ask people to keep on topic in threads. Greg raised the issue that the PPMC is not getting things done. I think it is impossible to organize an effort without communication that is focused.

RE: [nuttx] Wiki Backup

name. Thanks, Brennan <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/5pNSC> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:12 PM David Sidrane wrote: > Brennan, > > I bet it was grueling. Thank you again Brennan! > > David > -Original Message- > From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brenna

[REQUIREMENTS- NuttX Workflow]

[REQUIREMENTS- NuttX Workflow] I am creating this thread to gather ONLY REQUIREMENTS. See [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] After the requirements are gathered in one place we can discuss the merits and vote on them.

RE: [nuttx] Wiki Backup

Brennan, Thank you for your efforts! Justin: Is there an issue with adding all the PPMC to have the ability to edit the content? I see some naming that looks like url id became the Page Title: For example: NuttX Initialization Sequence is listed under Initsequence

RE: [nuttx] Wiki Backup

Thank you Justin! I see. So for benefit of others: Do not follow the link in the email and try to log in. Log into the dashboard first then follow the link there. David -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:49 AM To:

Re: Contributions (PR or patches)

I would like to reboot this. I would question some of these statements that are conditioned by history: Greg repeatedly stated that he hated PR and prefers patches. So to work with NuttX people sent patches. This is a fresh start, and the value of it is to be able to ASK the group what their

Re: Contributions (PR or patches)

> So, how will we keep track of approvals? I assume that GitHub has a built in mechanism for this purpose? Nathan, Yes it if built for this and from my perspective working on a 93 person team, with 67 repositories. It is highly efficient, collaborative, and effective. For example: Ignoring the

RE: [nuttx] Wiki Backup

getting updated, I did about 80% of them. I can finish that today, I just needed to go to sleep last night. Manually clicking through all the pages was grating on me. --Brennan On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 3:21 AM David Sidrane wrote: > Brennan, > > Thank you for your efforts! &

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

> 5 issue one pull request from your fork nuttx/apps to apache nuttx/apps > master branch Are you suggesting we have one repo NuttX with 2 folders apps and nuttx? That will simplify everything! - but I suspect we will receive STRONG arguments against it. So you say "one pull request"

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Hi, Sharing my thoughts here for discussion. === Source code checking Prior to submission, the submission shall be checked by a source code beatify-er. REQ1: The submission shall not be possible without a local check passing. REQ2: A tool shall be used to check the NuttX coding

RE: patch for ntpclient: merge xmit and recv buffer into one to save the stack

+1 -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 8:07 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: patch for ntpclient: merge xmit and recv buffer into one to save the stack > Should we enable the attachment before the new workflow

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

That is precisely what submodules do:submodules aggregate on a single SHAL N repositories. The problem is: How to have atomic checkout of the correct configuration with out a temporal shift? Please describe how you would do this. Give detailed steps. On 2019/12/18 10:09:26, Alan Carvalho de

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

ire branches, that will be annoying with submodules. This will still require separate pull requests for apps and nuttx. I have NEVER seen any contribution that really required an exactly atomic update to both repos. People often send patches for nuttx, and sometimes for apps. Why change that? Sebastien

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

>I haven’t found proper github plugin to get PRs from multiple repos(especially >PRs dependency 1) How would you create a way to do this. Hows about we add a file to the repo with the 2 shals in it and hand edit it before every push? ["NuttX/nuttx"] path = NuttX/nuttx url =

Re: [Degrees of freedom under ASF ]

Thank you Justin for the quick answers! 1 more below On 2019/12/19 14:00:36, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > I would like to get some clarification on the projects degrees of freedom > > under ASF from our mentors. > > As long as you follow the Apache Way you are free to do what you want.

[Degrees of freedom under ASF ]

I would like to get some clarification on the projects degrees of freedom under ASF from our mentors. Since we are all (except a few) new to the “Apache way” I think we need some enlightenment. I feel it is important that we, as a group, understand what are guidelines, rules and absolutes. I do

RE: Contributions (PR or patches)

ong as they apply > > clean and someone will spend the time to test them manually. > > > > Regards > > Alin > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM David Sidrane > wrote: > > > >>> So, how will we keep track of approvals? I a

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

This reads like a past slack discussion that ignored HW. Is that really what an embedded system OS should do? > Changes to code in MCU architectural support, board support, or features > in the periphery of the OS should be at the discretion of the > committer. Committers should use their best

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Greg, please read the first post again.

RE: Workflow and Release strategy Proposal (Was RE: Project Emails)

By who? Where is the vote? -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:45 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Workflow and Release strategy Proposal (Was RE: Project Emails) > Why would you want to shut down your slack

RE: Test Repository

Greg, -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 4:32 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Test Repository > Looking at https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/, I see several projects, > perhaps most projects, that have a special

RE: Test Repository

+1 -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 4:29 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Test Repository Looking at https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/, I see several projects, perhaps most projects, that have a special repository just

[CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

All, Please help flesh this out. Proposed Workflow Requirements (REQ) and Derived Requirements (DREQ) REQ1) master is branches of apps and nuttx have to always build REQ1.1) ALL development work is done on branches. DREQ1.1.1) master is branch protected prevention pushes to it. REQ2)

RE: Apache NuttX website

+1 -Original Message- From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:54 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache NuttX website Could we create the repo for the website. http://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html The one I created is

RE: Testing the new repository

-Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:02 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Testing the new repository >> We you can see the new repository is working fine. >> >> I submitted the i2C driver for STM32G070/NUCLEO-G070RB

[PATCH] imxrt fixes FW: [apache/incubator-nuttx] imxrt fixes (#1)

PATCH is here https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1.patch PR is here https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1 *From:* David Sidrane [mailto:notificati...@github.com] *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2019 3:42 AM *To:* apache/incubator-nuttx *Cc

RE: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

davi...@apache.org wrote: > This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository. > > davids5 pushed a commit to branch master_imxrt > in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-nuttx.git > > commit 9b7afcdfe51bff99c35780d8cd1389ace8fc9318 &

Re: Testing the new repository

Opps That would be me. I am sorry I just saw this when I was sending the PR and the URL of the patch to the list. I am happy to delete the branch and the PR if you like or we can use it to explore our new environment just let me know. (Or any PPMC can deleted it or push the merge button

RE: [incubator-nuttx] 05/05: imxrt106x:pinout add ALT 8 GPIO_GPT2_COMPARE3 & fix GPIO_GPT1_CAPTURE[1|2]

Ok. But that feels wrong. Aren't we going to have more than one set of eyes on things? I do make a lot of mistakes. I will let it sit a day and give a PMC member a chance to review it. -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019

Re: Test Repository

Hi Justin, Great points. See below On 2019/12/21 00:42:58, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > You may need to think how this fits into releases. some things to consider: > - Do you want the release to contain test information or not? A lot of Apache > project do include that but some don’t - it

RE: Away for two weeks

Enjoy! -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 5:07 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Away for two weeks H, I’m off on a two week break, while I’ll have some time to answer questions, where I'm going for the first week

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Hi Brennan, I agree with your reasoning and welcome the change, but let me expand on the initial reasoning. below. On 2019/12/21 07:56:35, Brennan Ashton wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 11:22 PM David Sidrane wrote: > > > All, > > > > Please help flesh this out. &

Re: Transferring Repositoies (Was Re: Masayuki Ishikawa added to NuttX committers)

On 2019/12/20 21:09:18, Gregory Nutt wrote: > [This conversation belongs on the dev list] > > > Which way is the mirrors? > > > > I believe I read somewhere, it's apache --> github. But I could be wrong. > > I recall Duo saying that you can set this up either way. > > > PMC I would

RE: Transferring Repositoies (Was Re: Masayuki Ishikawa added to NuttX committers)

+1 -Original Message- From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:47 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Transferring Repositoies (Was Re: Masayuki Ishikawa added to NuttX committers) On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 8:31 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote:

Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

Thank you Nathan! On 2019/12/22 06:01:55, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:26 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > Let me start by stating a few [obvious] objectives: > > Keep things simple for those NuttX users who prefer to work with a zip’d > > release. > > provide best-practice

Re: [VOTE] - votes must say [VOTE]

+1 binding On 2019/12/22 15:13:03, David Sidrane wrote: > All, > > Let's dispense with the ALL ambiguity > > We should assume if it does not say [VOTE] it is not a vote? > > David > > > > -Original Message- > From: Gregory Nutt [mailto

RE: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements]

+1 -Original Message- From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 9:30 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [CALL for TOP Down workflow Requirements] +1 to this. No ci yet so everything "passes" and just gets the commiter review. We

Re: Community

On 2019/12/22 19:29:38, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > Don't feel bad if there is haggling. Any document, no matter who writes it > > or how well, will need more work to fill in missing pieces, edit, etc., to > > bring it to "shipping quality." I will try to help as much as I can in the > >

Are you failure with the HAM Story?

All, This is one of my favorite Lessons that I learned... reposted from Private Are you failure with the HAM Story? A husband and his wife were in their kitchen. The husband was sitting at the kitchen table reading the newspaper while his wife was preparing a ham for dinner. The husband watched

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:46 AM David Sidrane wrote: > > > > 5 issue one pull request from your fork nuttx/apps to apache nuttx/apps > > master branch > > > > Are you suggesting we have one repo NuttX with 2 folders apps and nuttx? >

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

. > On 20 Dec 2019, at 13:09, David Sidrane wrote: > > Hi Fabio, > > What are the capabilities? > > It this 1 RPi/BBB per board nuttx board? > > David > > -Original Message- > From: Fabio Balzano [mailto:fa...@elfarolab.com] > Sent: Friday, December 20,

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

of it. The is a group decision. Also Pleases do fill us in on where we can see the SW CI & HW CI you mentioned. Do you have links maybe be we can use it now? Again Sorry! David On 2019/12/20 11:44:23, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > Hi David, > > On 12/20/19, David Sidrane wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Hi Nathan, You Rock! On 2019/12/20 05:31:37, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Sidrane wrote: > > > Changes to code in MCU architectural support, board support, or features > > > in the periphery of the OS should be at the discretion o

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Hi Nathan, On 2019/12/20 02:51:56, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 6:24 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > > >> ] A bad build system change can cause serious problems for a lot of > people around the world. A bad change in the core OS can destroy the good > reputation of the OS. > > >

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

on you want to test and it is done. > > BR, > > Alan > >> On 12/20/19, David Sidrane wrote: >> Hi Alan, >> >> Sorry if my intent was misunderstood. I am merely stating facts on were >> we >> are and how got there.I am not assigning blame. I am not f

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

submodule method bring? Even with a hat repository that contains two submodules (apps and nuttx), you will have to send separate pull requests for each submodule, right? Sebastien Le 18/12/2019 à 14:40, Gregory Nutt a écrit : > On 12/18/2019 4:23 AM, David Sidrane wrote: >> That is precisely

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Hi Nathan, Great list! I can +1 on most of them, but isn't correct that the PPMC will need to all agree on these? > When they wish to contribute, they can do so: > * Via a pull request > * Via a patch transmitted to us by some method Is this an ASF edict? > Regardless of the method, we would

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Agreed! Gosh I am hoping I am not talking down to people. I just remember my learning curve with git. If we are continuing to use git and I assume we are: My comments are meant to help people that do not understand how to use git for the process and evaluate what they will have to do if we choose

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Re: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow] On 12/18/2019 4:23 AM, David Sidrane wrote: > That is precisely what submodules do:submodules aggregate on a single SHAL > N repositories. > > The problem is: How to have atomic checkout of the correct configuration > with out a temporal shift? > >

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

The 2 and 3 is to contrast HARD against EASY. This is so ALL of us can realize we are not suggesting doing what is expedient*, What is being suggested is doing what is right. I am having a really hard time to get you to see this is not about EASY. It is subtle. >I don't know if my understanding

RE: [DISCUSS - NuttX Workflow]

Greg, Where do you see any reference to github (In a url as an example?) This is all pure git. Are we going to continue using git? David -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:07 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re:

Attachment test Photo

Got it! How about this. Never got your GitHub invitation? Visit github.com/apache to see if you have an invitation pending. Apache Account:Authed Welcome back, David! *Not David? Log out then!* GitHub Account:Authed You are currently

Re: [PATCH] This is a test! Please DON'T commit!

https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@nuttx.apache.org LOL - the list does list nor archive attachments. On 2019/12/20 17:56:42, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > Testing attachments. > > Greg, please confirm you can receive attachments. > > BR, > > Alan >

RE: Single Committer

Hi Ben, If you deep dive into this you will see that perforce is a SCM[1] that predates git. The tools are to perforce as, github is to git. [1] software configuration management (SCM or S/W CM) David -Original Message- From: Disruptive Solutions

Re: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer)

Hi Xiang, On 2019/12/25 05:36:14, Xiang Xiao wrote: > Yes, I agree that we shouldn't make the workflow too hard to scare > people for contribution. > NuttX isn't a new project, it's open source for more than ten years > and has a mature workflow, the whole community is already familiar > with

Re: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer)

t we will need the process documents to be consistent results. We have time for that. > > Thanks. > > David Sidrane 于2019年12月25日周三 下午9:55写道： > > > Hi Xiang, > > > > On 2019/12/25 05:36:14, Xiang Xiao wrote: > > > Yes, I agree that we shouldn

RE: [DISCUSS] Simple Workflow Proposal

Hi Duo, Well said and I am all for it. Two questions: 1 Who will apply the patches? 2 Can we use and merge a PR that has been reviewed? David -Original Message- From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) [mailto:palomino...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 4:35 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org

RE: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer)

David Sidrane wrote: > > Hi Xiang, > > On 2019/12/25 05:36:14, Xiang Xiao wrote: > > Yes, I agree that we shouldn't make the workflow too hard to scare > > people for contribution. > > NuttX isn't a new project, it's open source for more than ten years > >

RE: Workflow Development

+1 Agree I have not seen any WF proposals from Haitao Liu (other then on the submodule discussion) Haitao Liu please chime in. Have any of you used this? https://www.visual-paradigm.com/download/community.jsp Awesome tool with a super efficient UI This is an activity diagram

RE: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer)

+1 -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2019 6:41 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer) > Why does the authors matter. There

RE: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer)

: Wednesday, December 25, 2019 6:37 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer) David Sidrane 于2019年12月25日周三 下午9:55写道： > Hi Xiang, > > On 2019/12/25 05:36:14, Xiang Xiao wrote: > > Yes,

RE: Software release life cycle choices could have implications on workflow (was RE: Single Committer)

Even on a squashed merge there is traceability back to the PR and therefore ALL the history will be on the mailing list and publically available on GH. This is why a rebase work flow has to stop after review. (With some exceptions) but we always attribute to the Authors -Original

RE: 404 on site (Project status Nuttx)

Subject: Re: 404 on site (Project status Nuttx) I open a JIRA to get INFRA help: https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/INFRA-19634 On Friday, December 27, 2019, David Sidrane wrote: > What is in the way of fixing the 404? > > > > -Original Message- >

RE: squashing commits or not

Agree! If you read the work flow I suggested you will see it is a rebase until review WF. Noise should always be squashed. -Original Message- From: Abdelatif Guettouche [mailto:abdelatif.guettou...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2020 4:53 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re:

RE: Progress on making a release

I am unclear about the build status and what has been added and if all the configs are in the test list. As I read the email from Xiang Xiao - all the builds do not build yet. I thought in the past ALL the builds were built before a release. -Original Message- From: Abdelatif

RE: stm32h7 support for SDRAM via FMC

Andrew, My apologies! Bitbucket is a legacy mirror. Greg can you put a Notice on the site to avoid this sort of thing. Please submit a PR on Github https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps David -Original Message- From: Заболотный

RE: squashing commits or not

not the accepted workflow > at present. Yes, but eventually, that's the workflow we are going to call a vote on. All committers can edit and improve it. Non committers can ask to have the necessary permissions. On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:55 PM David Sidrane wrote: > > Abdelatif, > > Thank

RE: Build is broken

@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Build is broken may i assume you are using linux? here's a fix i tested on ubuntu. https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/95/commits/adb08a2634ef8df99d509a472e28a7907f73210d On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 1:21 AM David Sidrane wrote: > > This is what

RE: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document

and destination (git push src:dest) That's more typing, but prevents some mistakes. On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 01:38 David Sidrane wrote: > Hi Abdelatif, > > Yes I know. It is a defensive move, on my part, that makes it safe when > working with multiple companies who might not appreciat

RE: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document

, January 29, 2020 6:47 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:10 AM David Sidrane wrote: > Good tips! git is s powerful it is nice to lean other's tricks. > > Here is my `gitlast` command (it helps me answer the

RE: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document

, January 29, 2020 11:03 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:14 AM David Sidrane wrote: > My general comment on the Workflow document is it is too much information > and comments. > > Perhaps it can be broken into pa

RE: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document

t the procedure described in the workflow will generate merge commits? Keeping a WIP branch in synch is missing from the workflow. Basically same as you described, that should consist of synching master (fetch + merge from upstream) then rebasing the branch on top of master. On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 a

RE: IMXRT1050 USDHC

Hi Ivan, It is correct. It fixes a bug that was added when the imxrt1020 came in. Apparently Dave did not wire the CD pin of the IC to the socket (He used a GPIO). But that change broke the case were the CD pin of the IC is wired to the socket Please See

RE: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx-testing] justinmclean commented on issue #2: Multibranch pipeline job example

Yet another great argument for github actions. -Original Message- From: GitBox [mailto:g...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 1:26 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: [GitHub] [incubator-nuttx-testing] justinmclean commented on issue #2: Multibranch pipeline job example

[DISCUSS] adding templates for files.

When we do get this figured out. Can we put templates in a folder in the nuttx repo named something like: template_c_file.txt template_h_file.txt template_Make_file.txt template_ld_file.txt template_script_file.txt -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com] Sent:

RE: [DISCUSS] adding templates for files.

My argument for this is the coding standard document can reference the directory and `cp` or `copy` can be used to get a properly formatted staring point file. This is opposed to cutting and pasting from a web browser and possibly really getting garbage in the file. Less tools, less margin for

Re: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document

; You can merge local branch from a different remote than the branch is > tracking, giving that the merge is possible of course. > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:15 AM David Sidrane > wrote: > > > > Hi Abdelatif > > > > > Why do you prefer git reset

RE: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document

fork/master shall always be behind upstream/master, which will result in a fast forward. Why do you prefer git reset --hard /master to git merge /master after a fetch? On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:16 PM David Sidrane wrote: > > Hi Abdelatif, > > > Are you assuming that the work is alway

RE: Linker error

Ivan, There is a limit on what C++ can be compiled and built with Nuttx. The key is to not include any foreign (non nuttx) headers you can see the defconfigs setting used on PX4 here https://github.com/PX4/Firmware/tree/master/boards/px4/fmu-v5/nuttx-config/nsh and the things needed in Make.def

RE: IMXRT 1060 USB Device (copy of LPC43/LPC31 driver) - Set-up buffer problems

DTCM and D-cache are different You will need to add the cache clean and invalidate in the write/read functions to support D-cache. If you open a PR on Git hub, I will have a look at it. For comparison an STM32F7/H7 have these functions in the correct palces. David -Original Message-

RE: NuttX SocketCAN implementation

+pavel -Original Message- From: Peter Van Der Perk [mailto:peter.vanderp...@nxp.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 6:58 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: NuttX SocketCAN implementation Hi all, This is a follow up to the SocketCAN integration into NuttX discussion. As discussed

RE: Build is broken

on braches? David -Original Message- From: Nathan Hartman [mailto:hartman.nat...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 7:17 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Build is broken On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:13 AM David Sidrane wrote: > Build is broken > > Build

Build is broken

Build is broken Build is broken And the output looks very ODD - any ideas on what happened? Leaving directory '/home/david_s5/src/PX4/repos/mainline/NuttX/apps/platform' arm-none-eabi-ar rcs /home/david_s5/src/PX4/repos/mainline/NuttX/apps/libapps.a make[1]: Entering directory

RE: Build is broken

b 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM David Sidrane wrote: > > Build is broken > > Build is broken > > And the output looks very ODD - any ideas on what happened? > > Leaving directory > '/home/david_s5/src/PX4/repos/mainline/NuttX/apps/platform' > > arm-none-eabi-ar rcs > /h

RE: Build is broken

is broken On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:58 AM Nathan Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:21 AM David Sidrane > wrote: > > > This is what I did: > > > > For apps and nuttx git fetch nuttx > > For apps and nuttx git checkout master > >

RE: [DISCUSS]Bug Tracking

-Original Message- From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bash...@brennanashton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 10:24 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]Bug Tracking On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 10:09 AM David Sidrane wrote: > +1 for Github issues per repo. > > Repos can b

RE: [DISCUSS]Bug Tracking

+1 for Github issues per repo. Repos can be cross referenced in markup. Assignees can be assigned labels can be assigned. Projects (roll up across repos) can be assigned. Milestones can be assigned. UI is simple and effective Query by any of the above attributes. The interfaces is present when on

RE: [DISCUSS] Remove Windows Native support?

+1 FIX THE WINDOWS NATIVE SUPPORT && add a native test environment -Original Message- From: Alin Jerpelea [mailto:jerpe...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 4:06 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove Windows Native support? I am for option 3 FIX THE WINDOWS

RE: Apache Code Relese (Was Re: Side-effects of removing (void))

The NuttX project is still misusing the tools. It is not the PR. It is the process (or lack of one) To solve this problem: Build the PR on top of master BEFORE merging. Do not MERGE until PR on master builds. David -Original Message- From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudan...@gmail.com]

RE: [VOTE] Remove Windows Native support?

-1 Keep it. It enables adoption. David -Original Message- From: cheshmedzh...@gmail.com [mailto:cheshmedzh...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:25 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Remove Windows Native support? -1 Keep It. It is useful, less or more... Best

Re: Issue Reporting

>>>>>> This can all be turned on with the .asf.yml file and I can submit the >>>>>> pr for that if we want. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Brennan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 20

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

it to ASK wiki? > > BR, > > Alan > > On 1/3/20, David Sidrane wrote: > > Given all the input from ASF mentors : Should this live on the ASF Nuttx > > servers, possibly labeled "interim work flow", and should it be voted on > > prior to use? >

FW: [PX4/Firmware] To test [PX4/NuttX] [BACKPORT] STM32F7 and STM32H7 SDMMC internal pull up usage fixed (#78) (#13787)

FYI *From:* modaltb [mailto:notificati...@github.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2019 4:13 PM *To:* PX4/Firmware *Cc:* David Sidrane; Author *Subject:* Re: [PX4/Firmware] To test [PX4/NuttX] [BACKPORT] STM32F7 and STM32H7 SDMMC internal pull up usage fixed (#78) (#13787) Tested over 300

[DISCUSS] RE: Working Effectively (was Point of Order)

, December 30, 2019 6:01 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Working Effectively (was Point of Order) On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:09 AM David Sidrane wrote: > > Hold on! > Having a coding standard with 4000+ files in the repo that do not pass the > test… > …reminds me of

  1   2   3   4   >