Two items for dev-review: * https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26025#issuecomment-656044858 against https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26750#discussion_r452120857 and the

Zephyr: Toolchain Working Group When: Thursday, 9 July 2020 2:00pm to 3:00pm (GMT+00:00) UTC Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Description: Live meeting minutes:

Reminder: Zephyr: Toolchain Working Group When: Thursday, 9 July 2020, 2:00pm to 3:00pm, (GMT+00:00) UTC Where:Microsoft Teams Meeting An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP Organizer:

Here’s the agenda topics for this week: * Any PR/issues w/dev-review tag https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/labels/dev-review * Any topics anyone else has. - k

Agenda Updates: Wayne: PR22668: News Thomas: IAR: Updates Torsten: Toolchain abstraction: Issue:#16031, Draft PR:https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/24851 Short term goals, way

Hi Anas, Less scientifically I just did some reviews and perhaps half of them already had one approval. So presumably they were blocked. I guess you are saying it's only a third. OK. But that's a lot.

Following https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/development_process/api_lifecycle.html#stable we have a need to make a small change to the watchdog API that meets the criteria of "...forces users to

Hi all, The current subset of USB device classes implemented by Zephyr is now fairly complete, so we are ready to tackle the long needed cleaning up of the USB structures and classes that the USB

To elaborate, there is a critical bug in the GCC 8.3.0 (included in the Zephyr SDK 0.10.3) that causes it to emit incorrect instructions for the ARC targets. (see

Any plan to have 1.14 LTS branch upgrading SDK as master does? IMHO, we should do that because we claim it's LTS branch. Thanks

Hi, Here some data… What I have just posted on slack… So, go do some reviews please😊 Thanks Anas From:<devel@...> on behalf of Carles Cufi <carles.cufi@...> Date:

Reminder: Zephyr Project: APIs When: Tuesday, 7 July 2020, 4:00pm to 5:00pm, (GMT+00:00) UTC Where:Microsoft Teams Meeting An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP Organizer:

Hi, I've noticed that the steval_fcu001v1 board is supported on Zephyr, however I could not find an example with the flight control software. Does anyone know if any work has been done with regards to

Hi Simon, Not to my knowledge, no. But perhaps Ioannis or Anas know if it’s also documented elsewhere. Regarding the “stamp of approval” that was mentioned earlier in the thread, I think we

Carles has asked me to stand in for him again in coordinating this week's API telecon. Topics include: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/26305 adding mode flags to

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

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

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

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

Hi Carles, Perhaps given the situation this should be reversed? Regards, Simon