Skip to content

Tracking: upstream PR replicas — adoption priority #69

Description

@mairas

Adoption-priority order for the 24 upstream PRs (mxtommy/Kip #1064–#1094, excluding our own #1091/#1092) replicated here as SKip PRs #40#65.

Each was scored on user impact + marine-safety relevance (safety weighted) minus adoption effort + merge risk; an agent read each PR's description, linked bug reports, and diff. Tiers below are the recommended working order — check items off as they merge or close.

Legend: #NN links the SKip PR · ⚠️ conflict-resolved = the replicated diff isn't a faithful upstream copy (needs a build + diff-read) · 🔗 = part of an ordered stack · "addresses #N" = closes/overlaps a review issue.

Tier 1 — Safety-critical display correctness

Wrong/stale instrument data is the worst failure mode for a marine display. Both are ~1-file fixes.

Tier 2 — Autopilot & chart correctness

Small, high-relevance fixes. This tier fills the codebase review's acknowledged blind spot — widget/instrument correctness was never reviewed.

Tier 3 — Reliability & low-power performance

Pi-hardware smoothness and persistence reliability.

Tier 4 — Features / niche (schedule deliberately)

Stacks are all-or-nothing and must land in order.

Close — don't work

Redundant with work already in main.


Cross-cutting:

Generated assessment; 24 PRs. Scores/ordering are advisory.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    kip-reviewFrom the 2026-06-30 Kip/SKip codebase reviewtrackingTracking / meta issueupstream-replicaReplica of an upstream mxtommy/Kip PR

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions