Sun Apr 15 22:39:40 CEST 2007
On 15 Apr 2007, at 21:31, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> 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
>>> code to get done the jobs that he needs to do, and which may be
>>> 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.
Agreed. Avoiding a fork is most likely preferable by all parties.
I'm trying to consolidate some ideas for discussion regarding the
"direction" section of Rich's message such that we can hopefully
reach an agreeable conclusion for coexistence of organised and
disorganised development. I don't think it will be as difficult as it
might seem at first glance.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel