[FFmpeg-cvslog] r19321 - branches/0.5/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi

[Diego Biurrun]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:39:50PM +0100, Robert Swain wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:14:07 +0200, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:25:23PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > On date Friday 2009-07-03 11:19:27 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:14:19PM +0200, stefano wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Log:
> > > > > Update ffmpeg documentation regarding metadata setting. -title,
> > > > > -author, -copyright, -track, -album, and -year options have been
> > > > > dropped in favor of -metadata.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Backfix of r19285, r19287, and r19320.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Modified:
> > > > >    branches/0.5/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi
> > > > 
> > > > It seems I didn't flame hard enough the last time around.  One
> > > > more try:
> > > > 
> > > > Stop "backporting" unapproved patches to the 0.5 branch THIS
> > > > FUCKING INSTANT!  Much less if you haven't bothered to RTFM to
> > > > find out how to do it properly.  Now revert this mess.
> > > 
> > > Done.
> > > 
> > > Now, would you be kind enough to explain which is the procedure to
> > > follow for making backports?
> > 
> > As I said, RTFM.
> 
> Stefano is trying to be helpful and improve the quality of the
> release.

The sentiment is appreciated, but the net result of his actions is
further delaying the point release.

> As far as I can discover from trunk or the branch, we don't have any
> documented procedure for backporting changes to the release branch.
> Grepping the entire trees case insensitively for 'backport', 'branch'
> or 'release' throws nothing relevant. This suggests there is no manual
> to read on such. Where is it documented?

The documentation of Subversion itself of course.  Branching and merging
do not work by simply applying patches, on the contrary, you should use
the revision control system itself.

People who do not know or understand that should not touch branches.

Here's the relevant part of the Subversion documentation:

http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.html

especially

http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html

Go and read it, Subversion's documentation is second to none.

> Also, why did you get so angry? The change could be easily reverted and
> this isn't happening so regularly as for your response to be the
> result of growing weary of telling people. As far as I'm aware there was
> one previous instance where something was committed to the branch that
> you didn't approve.
> 
> I'm not saying people should commit unapproved patches to the branch,
> not at all, just that I think your response was rude, discouraging and
> an overreaction.

There was one previous instance where it was done completely wrong, now
a second one.  My time is very limited at the moment, I do not want to
waste it on more flaming and reverting other people's fixes.  To prevent
this from happening for a third time (or more) I flamed harder this time
around.  It appears that I succeeded at getting my point across.

Note that I'm working on 0.5.1 for some time already and it is delayed.
I asked for help identifying security-relevant fixes and got no
responses.  Fine, I'm not complaining.  If somebody wants to help,
great, if nobody is motivated to help, bad luck, I'll have to do it
myself.

What I do *not* want is people putting obstacles in my way and wasting
the little time that I have available.  Unfortunately, this is the
situation right now and there is no way I can tolerate that if I want
to get any productive work done at all, sorry.

Diego