Sun Apr 15 22:31:53 CEST 2007
Ismail D?nmez wrote:
> On Sunday 15 April 2007 22:29:00 Rich Felker wrote:
>> Sorry everyone for the hasty argument and flames. I'm not familiar
>> with all the issues Baptiste and Michael are discussing, but I hope we
>> can clear things up and lower the levels of hostility a little bit.
>> As far as I can tell, Michael has very high standards for code that
>> goes in ffmpeg, and also wants clean, general-purpose interfaces to
>> the library rather than things that are very codec-specific or
>> On the other hand, Baptiste seems to be working very hard implementing
>> code to get done the jobs that he needs to do, and which may be useful
>> to many others as well.
>> While there may be a difference in needs and approaches, I hope that
>> we can discuss like sane respectable people and reach not just a
>> solution to whatever arguments are going on now, but also future
>> direction and policy.
> Well imho also regressions are worrisome, recently (at least for me) frame
> rate detection and also audio bitrate detection got worse. Fixing regressions
> would be a priority. On the other hand a fork might just make the whole
> situation worse (unlike X.org fork from XFree86 where all-1 developers were
> involved in the fork which is not the case here).
The problem of any fork is to create a community around it. As you say,
if it's a couple of developers "against" plenty it has little chance
succeed. While I don't imagine FFMPEG fading away, I think a fork could
only succeed if it adds something substantial.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 124 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel