Hi Christian,
my opinion is that your proposal to correct the artifact that currently are present on FW available versions is strongly welcomed! At least I strongly believe that any upgrade is welcome!? Please share your code modifications to every code developer. We must thank you and people like you!?? We are lucky to have in our community people able to share her/his experience and/or lab tests.
Few weeks ago I got the beneficial support of Dave Lapp who replayed my call to have a FW version able to use the UART interface we can find on nanoVNA-H (pcb version 3.4). Was I "pissing-off" him? I believe that he was happy to devote his free-time to my request!? This is our hobby! Not only play with cable and connectors!
Best regards
Piero, I0KPT
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Il 24/09/2020 14:32, Christian Zietz ha scritto:
Larry,
I'm all for contributing changes back to the community. I'm a maintainer of multiple open-source SW projects, too.
However, the feedback I got to my first email when I courteously wanted to discuss possible changes was only negative:
- The NanoVNA is an inexpensive device, so I should not expect it to implement the time domain like a R&S/Keysight VNA would do.
- It's not of interest to many users.
- It should not be done in firmware for code size reasons.
Maybe I'm misreading the emails but to me that's not the warmest of welcomes to someone new to the forum, either. This leads me to the question whether contributing my changes (via pull request) would only result in similar negativity/disinterest. So, why should I try it, then?
