CI Information

^{To view the history of this post, clich the 'edited' button above}
Build number: 5

Inputs:

Sources:

sdk-nrf: PR head: 74d80367c01a85f873ba3acadd2d4e5536fc088b

Github labels

CODEOWNERS

Outputs:

Toolchain

Version:
Build docker image:

Test Spec & Results: ✅ Success; ❌ Failure; 🟠 Queued; 🟡 Progress; ◻️ Skipped; ⚠️ Quarantine

• ◻️ Toolchain
• ◻️ Build twister
• ◻️ Integration tests

Note: This message is automatically posted and updated by the CI

Yes as per https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners?azure-portal=true

# In this example, any change inside the `/scripts` directory
# will require approval from @doctocat or @octocat.
/scripts/ @doctocat @octocat

this is not acceptable

needs discussion with @carlescufi from what I remember this means that a review is needed from one of the listed groups, and that would be wrong

Hmm, so it is even better! I know that you have a lot of work, and there are only two people in the ncs-co-build-system, so if we want to, for example, change a simple Kconfig value related to Matter/Thread, it would be great if we could avoid bothering you for review. :)

@carlescufi I believe it simplifies work for ncs-co-build-system, ncs-matter and ncs-thread :)

needs discussion with @carlescufi from what I remember this means that a review is needed from one of the listed groups, and that would be wrong

Hmm, so it is even better! I know that you have a lot of work, and there are only two people in the ncs-co-build-system, so if we want to, for example, change a simple Kconfig value related to Matter/Thread, it would be great if we could avoid bothering you for review. :)

@carlescufi I believe it simplifies work for ncs-co-build-system, ncs-matter and ncs-thread :)

nack, results in complete abuse of features e.g. #24027

needs discussion with @carlescufi from what I remember this means that a review is needed from one of the listed groups, and that would be wrong

Hmm, so it is even better! I know that you have a lot of work, and there are only two people in the ncs-co-build-system, so if we want to, for example, change a simple Kconfig value related to Matter/Thread, it would be great if we could avoid bothering you for review. :)
@carlescufi I believe it simplifies work for ncs-co-build-system, ncs-matter and ncs-thread :)

nack, results in complete abuse of features e.g. #24027

Yeah, the usage of snippets there was not a good fit, as probably the shape of configuration changed in between. But the PR that introduced it was approved by you, isn't it: #20072?

needs discussion with @carlescufi from what I remember this means that a review is needed from one of the listed groups, and that would be wrong

Hmm, so it is even better! I know that you have a lot of work, and there are only two people in the ncs-co-build-system, so if we want to, for example, change a simple Kconfig value related to Matter/Thread, it would be great if we could avoid bothering you for review. :)
@carlescufi I believe it simplifies work for ncs-co-build-system, ncs-matter and ncs-thread :)

nack, results in complete abuse of features e.g. #24027

Why so aggressive? :( I want to help with simplifying and speeding up our work. We're not removing ncs-co-build-system from review; we want to see your opinion and suggestions, especially as mentioned in the linked PR. It is essential for us to be notified if anything changes in those files. It is important for us, and without that, we have no control. For now, we don't have a better system to track such changes, so it is one of the possible solutions. Let's wait for the @carlescufi statement.