[Ovmsdev] New pull requests pending
ovms at soko.cc
Fri Aug 14 17:18:44 HKT 2020
I see the point in not having unfinished code in the master so I removed
my OBD implementation from this pull request.
Whats left is just the same source as before but with preparation for
the OBD part.
@others: Please let me know your thoughts
On 14.08.2020 10:56, Chris van der Meijden wrote:
> I agree on not further discussing this. I made my point.
> Am Freitag, den 14.08.2020, 10:02 +0200 schrieb Soko:
>> I'm not quite sure if we should discuss this here or in the pull
>> request itself. Maybe Mark or Michael should say whats best.
>> Anyhow... Let me put you to ease with my /answers below.../
>> On 14.08.2020 09:18, Chris van der Meijden wrote:
>>> Hey Soko,
>>> sorry I don't agree on this pull request.
>> /Just to make things clear with the other guys: You are talking about
>> one of the pull requests, the one with the source split./
>>> We have already discussed this.
>>> Lets put this straight. My code for the T26A part is not ready yet.
>>> Climate control is still very buggy and it would confuse the user to
>>> have such a buggy feature within a possible OVMS release. It will
>>> take me probably a week or two, maybe longer, to get the climate
>>> control fixed. Then we can do a pull request to the master.
>> /The T26A code in my pull request is not the one from your fork. It's
>> the one that is officially in the master branch of openvehicles. So
>> nothing changes for the user and not one source line is different
>> then before./
>>> An other point we also talked about, is that you have not documented
>>> your OBD part at all. This is also not acceptable. You can't put
>>> features with in the official OVMS repository that are not
>>> documented at all. How does the user use your VW e-Up OBD part? What
>>> hardware is needed? Where does the user see the results in the
>>> webfrontend? Does the app work with your code? ...
>> /The user is not able to use any of the OBD code as pointed out in
>> the pull request description. This is more an esthetic question as
>> the code is not active. If the others feel the same I can remove my
>> obd_*.* files from the pull request. The outcome is the same... /
>>> You can't put unready code in the master.
>>> That is the reason why we use forks. We merge a fork when we have
>>> kind of stable code with features that are well documented.
>>> This is not the case at the moment with the splitted VW e-Up code.
>> /To sum up: Nothing at all changes for the user with me my pull
>> request. Well... besides the name of the VW e-Up vehicle. But is
>> taken care of in the upgrade method./
>> /I even prepared everything so you have it as easy as possible when
>> this pull request is put into the master: When you pull it your fork
>> you only have to backup your three t26_*.* files from your fork. Then
>> just take 1:1 the openvehicles-master and put your backup back.
>> At least that's how I would do it as I'm not familiar how this is
>> done in git directly ;)/
>>> Am Freitag, den 14.08.2020, 07:06 +0200 schrieb Soko:
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>> Just want to let you know on this way as well about the two pull
>>>> requests I have opened yesterday.
>>>> Let me know your thoughts. Would be cool if they will be merged very
>>>> soon so I can continue my work on the VW e-Up.
>>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com <mailto:OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com>
>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com <mailto:OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com>
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OvmsDev