[FFmpeg-cvslog] r23911 - trunk/libavutil/internal.h

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Thu Jul 1 06:11:06 CEST 2010

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 04:09:09AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:09:56PM +0200, mru wrote:
> >> Author: mru
> >> Date: Wed Jun 30 22:09:55 2010
> >> New Revision: 23911
> >> 
> >> Log:
> >> Improve FF_SYMVER documentation
> >
> > You are removing parts of the documentation, this is not a change from
> > 3rd to 1st person anymore.
> I changed it from a rant against gnu linkers to a description of what
> it actually does.  There is a time and place for everything, but this
> is not the place for a rant.  If you want to rant, use a blog.

> By the way, has it ever occurred to you that people may be hesitant to
> work on things due to fear of incurring your wrath?  You complain that
> nobody reviews patches, that nobody helps improve things etc, etc, but
> every time someone takes an initiative to do something, you smite them
> with the maintainership club and force them back into silence.

when jason commited to your code you abused your root power and closed
his account. 
when you commit to pretty much every file without asking and without
discussion, its me who is the one with the  maintainership club if i politely
point out that this should have been discussed first.

And here you remove what you feel is a rant. Where is the line?
You seem to decide it as you see fit.
Do you think ffmpeg svn has a future if you continue this?
Would you continue to work if everyone else jason, baptiste, me, ...
would remove and change in configure what we feel is a rant?
and it has been mentioned more than once that things dont work simply
because you dont want to use the libs the way their maintainers require
them to be used, found or linked.

Working together on a project where everyone can write to everyone elses
code requires some amount of discussion, tolerance and compromise.
If everyone would simply remove without discussion what he felt was a rant
from other peoples code or change the style of other peoples stuff as he
prefers. Really that wouldnt work out for very long.

ffmpeg has actual shortcommings that need work, things like getting
codec specific options working that is though AVOptions on the private
context for example. (its something i wanted to work on)
but instead of helping you go bererk and do all these changes without
asking any of the maintainers.
To come back to the alleged rant, are you sure you can in that berserker
mood even justly draw a line between rant and different viewpoint and
And would if its really a rand and really useless and really should be
removed, have been so bad to discuss this first on the ML?
a simple, "I think that comment is an inappropiate rant, id like to
remove it [RFC]"
yes chances are people might have disagreed and you couldnt have
removed it then but simply skiping the discussion isnt changing that


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Democracy is the form of government in which you can choose your dictator
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-cvslog/attachments/20100701/ec16046b/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list