|
Re: Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Simon Glass
Hi Carles, OK I see. Since you called out the 2-approver change as a cause of the bottleneck, I'm assuming there is data available on this. I was looking around for discussion about the decision. The closest I found was here. Is there something else? Regards, SImon
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:23, Cufi, Carles <Carles.Cufi@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [Zephyr-users] [Zephyr-devel] Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Nashif, Anas
Agreed. Those who can merge, should take 2 approvals and all other checks as a sign that it is ready to merge, no need for the approval of the person who merges, although a 3rd approval might give the PR a strong “Go”. This is actually what we agreed on 😊
Anas
From:
<users@...> on behalf of Lawrence King <lawrence.king@...>
Hi Charles:
This just my personal opinion on the subject. Two approvals is the right thing to do and what the TSC approved earlier this year.
BUT, if the second +1 is just a rubber stamp approval of the maintainer’s +1 then there is no point having two approvals.
The second +1 should come from someone who is: knowledgeable in the area, has studied the changes, and approves.
Lawrence King Principal Developer +1(416)627-7302
From: devel@... <devel@...>
On Behalf Of Carles Cufi
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:23 PM To: Simon Glass <sjg@...> Cc: devel@...; users@... Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Hi Simon,
A decision like that would need to go through the TSC, and in order to be able to vote we’d need to have clear stats on how many PRs are actually blocked by this policy. I was thinking about this recently, and given that those in Zephyr with merge rights can in fact add their +1 and they typically rely on a maintainer’s review to decide whether to merge a PR or not, this might not have as big as an impact as I originally thought.
That said, I believe we need a new GitHub filter to help us. Right now, we have one that lists PRs that are approved, passing CI and ready to merge, but what we need is one that shows all PRs that are partially approved (i.e. a single +1) and passing CI. Then those of us with merge rights could go over those regularly (like we do for the former) and, provided there’s a +1 from a maintainer, we could take one additional look at the PR, approve it and merge it.
I’d very much like to hear the opinion of others with merge rights in this thread.
Regards,
Carles
From: Simon Glass <sjg@...>
Hi Carles,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 03:19, Carles Cufi <carles.cufi@...> wrote:
Perhaps given the situation this should be reversed?
Regards, Simon
|
|
|
|
Re: Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Hi Charles:
This just my personal opinion on the subject. Two approvals is the right thing to do and what the TSC approved earlier this year.
BUT, if the second +1 is just a rubber stamp approval of the maintainer’s +1 then there is no point having two approvals.
The second +1 should come from someone who is: knowledgeable in the area, has studied the changes, and approves.
Lawrence King Principal Developer +1(416)627-7302
From: devel@... <devel@...>
On Behalf Of Carles Cufi
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:23 PM To: Simon Glass <sjg@...> Cc: devel@...; users@... Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Hi Simon,
A decision like that would need to go through the TSC, and in order to be able to vote we’d need to have clear stats on how many PRs are actually blocked by this policy. I was thinking about this recently, and given that those in Zephyr with merge rights can in fact add their +1 and they typically rely on a maintainer’s review to decide whether to merge a PR or not, this might not have as big as an impact as I originally thought.
That said, I believe we need a new GitHub filter to help us. Right now, we have one that lists PRs that are approved, passing CI and ready to merge, but what we need is one that shows all PRs that are partially approved (i.e. a single +1) and passing CI. Then those of us with merge rights could go over those regularly (like we do for the former) and, provided there’s a +1 from a maintainer, we could take one additional look at the PR, approve it and merge it.
I’d very much like to hear the opinion of others with merge rights in this thread.
Regards,
Carles
From: Simon Glass <sjg@...>
Hi Carles,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 03:19, Carles Cufi <carles.cufi@...> wrote:
Perhaps given the situation this should be reversed?
Regards, Simon
|
|
|
|
Re: Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Carles Cufi
Hi Simon,
A decision like that would need to go through the TSC, and in order to be able to vote we’d need to have clear stats on how many PRs are actually blocked by this policy. I was thinking about this recently, and given that those in Zephyr with merge rights can in fact add their +1 and they typically rely on a maintainer’s review to decide whether to merge a PR or not, this might not have as big as an impact as I originally thought.
That said, I believe we need a new GitHub filter to help us. Right now, we have one that lists PRs that are approved, passing CI and ready to merge, but what we need is one that shows all PRs that are partially approved (i.e. a single +1) and passing CI. Then those of us with merge rights could go over those regularly (like we do for the former) and, provided there’s a +1 from a maintainer, we could take one additional look at the PR, approve it and merge it.
I’d very much like to hear the opinion of others with merge rights in this thread.
Regards,
Carles
From: Simon Glass <sjg@...>
Sent: 06 July 2020 19:46 To: Cufi, Carles <Carles.Cufi@...> Cc: devel@...; users@... Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Hi Carles,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 03:19, Carles Cufi <carles.cufi@...> wrote:
Perhaps given the situation this should be reversed?
Regards, Simon
|
|
|
|
Re: Post 2.3.0 PR merging
Simon Glass
Hi Carles, On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 03:19, Carles Cufi <carles.cufi@...> wrote: Hi all, Perhaps given the situation this should be reversed? Regards, Simon
|
|
|
|
Re: Backport NRF UART fixes to 1.14.x
#lts
Carles Cufi
Hi Ryan,
This PR is approved and marked Ready in the Backports project. This means that it will be bulk-merged with others as soon as the next release in the 1.14.x series is prepared.
If you are interested in pushing such release I’d encourage you to join the Bug triage and Release Readiness meetings on Tuesdays. You can see the details in the TSC group in lists.io:
https://lists.zephyrproject.org/g/tsc
Thanks,
Carles
From: devel@... <devel@...>
On Behalf Of Ryan Erickson via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 06 July 2020 15:56 To: devel@... Subject: [Zephyr-devel] Backport NRF UART fixes to 1.14.x #lts
Looking to get this PR merged: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/24245
|
|
|
|
Backport NRF UART fixes to 1.14.x
#lts
Ryan Erickson
Looking to get this PR merged: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/24245
|
|
|
|
No reviews on PRs
Becker Markus
Hi Zephyr team,
I have had PRs to Zephyr that have been reviewed immediately and got merged rather quickly. Some PRs however are not getting a review although (or because) there are many reviewers assigned. What is the process to trigger reviews on PRs that have been around for some time with reviewers assigned, but no reviews happening?
According to https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/contribute/index.html#pull-requests-and-issues it’s to bring up the topic on the mailing list.
Specifically, the PRs in questions https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26193 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/25627
BR, Markus
Dr. Markus Becker Software Engineer IoT Global Systems - Embedded Software IoT
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG Färbergasse 15 6850 Dornbirn, Austria
T +43 (0) 5572 395 - 45637 Follow us Legal form of Company: GmbH & Co KG VAT-No.: ATU53377108
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this e-mail is received in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the e-mail and attached documents. Please note that neither the sender nor the sender's company accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this e-mail and any attachments.
|
|
|
|
Re: Measuring LiPo on Adafruit nRF52 Feather
Peter A. Bigot
Look at samples/boards/nrf/battery, and boards/arm/thingy52_nrf52832/thingy52_nrf52832.dts which adds the voltage-divider compatible that describes the circuit connected to the ADC input. You'll need a similar node with the resistances specific to your board.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Measuring LiPo on Adafruit nRF52 Feather
Tomas McGuinness <tomas@...>
Hello,
I'm quite new to Zephyr, and I have a question related to the nRF52 Adafruit Feather.
As I understand it, this board gives you the ability to measure the voltage on the connected LiPo battery using GPIO 31 (A7).
For a small sensor project, I would like to use this measurement to report on battery level, but I cannot find any guidance on how I might read this pin's value?
Are there any examples you would recommend I take a look at? Any help would be very much appreciated!
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Re: Dev-Review Meeting Agenda Jul 2
Kumar Gala
On Jul 2, 2020, at 7:15 AM, Kumar Gala via lists.zephyrproject.org <kumar.gala=linaro.org@...> wrote:Had the wrong link here, should be links to: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26616 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26388
|
|
|
|
Upcoming Event: Zephyr Project: Dev Meeting - Thu, 07/02/2020 3:00pm-4:00pm, Please RSVP
#cal-reminder
devel@lists.zephyrproject.org Calendar <devel@...>
Reminder: Zephyr Project: Dev Meeting When: Thursday, 2 July 2020, 3:00pm to 4:00pm, (GMT+00:00) UTC Where:Microsoft Teams Meeting An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP Organizer: devel@... Description: ________________________________________________________________________________
+1 321-558-6518 United States, Orlando (Toll)
Conference ID: 483 314 739#
Local numbers | Reset PIN | Learn more about Teams | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Re: Dev-Review Meeting Agenda Jun 10
Erwan Gouriou
Thanks Marti for sharing!
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:40, Bolivar, Marti <marti.bolivar@...> wrote: "Bolivar, Marti via lists.zephyrproject.org"
|
|
|
|
Dev-Review Meeting Agenda Jul 2
Kumar Gala
Here’s the agenda topics for this week:
* initial steps towards devicetree-based device definitions and dependency representations [@pabigot] [ https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/25996 ] * stm32: devices signals configuration from dt pinctrl nodes [@erwango] [ https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/25996 ] * Any PR/issues w/dev-review tag * Any topics anyone else has. - k
|
|
|
|
Re: Bluetooth mesh and Central role simultaneously
#bluetoothmesh
#bluetooth
Hi Andreas,
On 1. Jul 2020, at 15.47,
andreas.schmidt@... wrote:
No, I don’t think that combination would make sense. One option I forgot to mention is the bt_mesh_suspend() & bt_mesh_resume() APIs. You could try suspending mesh operations (advertising & scanning) for the duration of performing what you need in central
role, and then calling bt_mesh_resume() again. The effect will basically be the same as taking the mesh node out of range from the mesh network for that duration.
Johan
|
|
|
|
Re: Bluetooth mesh and Central role simultaneously
#bluetoothmesh
#bluetooth
Hi Johan,
thank you very much for your help in that matter. I am aware of the reduced scanning time for the mesh. It’s just that in my scenario the mesh is running all day long, and occasionally some BLE smartphone touches the device and then I need that fast ad-hoc connection.
With saying “LPN nodes are an exception”: do you think that the targeted coexistence with BLE Central role could be possible with a LowPower node?
I understand that we will not have a solution for my scenario short-term, so I might really have to think about using two controllers to get started. Overall I am quite impressed about the status of the BLE implementations in Zephyr and am looking forward to the next steps.
Best wishes, Andreas
|
|
|
|
Upcoming Event: Zephyr Project: APIs - Tue, 06/30/2020 4:00pm-5:00pm, Please RSVP
#cal-reminder
devel@lists.zephyrproject.org Calendar <devel@...>
Reminder: Zephyr Project: APIs When: Tuesday, 30 June 2020, 4:00pm to 5:00pm, (GMT+00:00) UTC Where:Microsoft Teams Meeting An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP Organizer: devel@... Description: Meeting decisions/discussions in their respective PRs, tracked here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/projects/18 ________________________________________________________________________________
+1 321-558-6518 United States, Orlando (Toll)
Conference ID: 317 990 129#
Local numbers | Reset PIN | Learn more about Teams | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
API meeting agenda: 2020-06-30
Peter A. Bigot
Carles has asked me to stand in for him in coordinating this week's API telecon.
Topics include:
- Add i2c_async for asynchronous transfers
- 23371 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/23371 - drivers: i2c: Add i2c_async for asynchronous transfers
- Related PRs:
- 22409 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/22409 - device: device api extension proposal
- 24781 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/24781 - lib: queued_operation: add API for managing a queue of operations
- 23075 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/23075 - Asynchronous sequence manager
- 26173 https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26173 - "uart: add a new "line ctrl changed remotely"
- Status update on QSPI infrastructure
- SFDP support: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/25851
- STM32 QSPI: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/25806
- NXP iMX QSPI: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/25669
Teams link: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NWU2MjZlYWEtZDcwMi00MWQzLTgwMjEtNDdkYjQwMjBjMmFj%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22af0096d9-700c-411a-b795-b3dd7122bad2%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22841a7c92-7816-4faf-9887-5e334e88f6d8%22%7d
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/wiki/Zephyr-Committee-and-Working-Group-Meetings#zephyr-api-discussion
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/projects/18
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv-8B5QE2m4FjBcvfqAXFIgQfW5oz6306zJ7GIZIWCk/edit
|
|
|
|
SDK 0.11.4 Release
Kumar Gala
Hi,
Some minor fixes related to newlib and a packaging related fix for the individual arch toolchain packages (missing the cmake files) The SDK can be found here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/sdk-ng/releases/tag/v0.11.4 Please download and try things out and report any issues. - General: * Fixed issue with cmake files not being installed in arch specific toolchan packages - newlib: * Fix setting of -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES consistent on all builds * Set march=pentium for 32-bit x86 build - k
|
|
|
|
Zephyr: Toolchain Working Group - Thu, 06/25/2020
#cal-notice
devel@lists.zephyrproject.org Calendar <noreply@...>
Zephyr: Toolchain Working Group When: Where: Description: Live meeting minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IQKBK-GcJNZG0O9QArqYfvb6Huk5xHscN-XIGEZr-z8/edit#heading=h.x36xe8bnwr9r
________________________________________________________________________________
+1 321-558-6518 United States, Orlando (Toll)
Conference ID: 682 738 030#
Local numbers | Reset PIN | Learn more about Teams | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
