[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] rtsp - alternate protocol
Sat Dec 29 01:54:26 CET 2007
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:08:59AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 09:53:24PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:57:08PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 28, 2007 2:42 PM, Aurelien Jacobs <aurel at gnuage.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Either an #ifdef VERSION or a version bump. I personaly don't care.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No need yet for a version bump, this stuff will go away by itself... New
> > > version of patch#3 attached.
> > patch ok
> May I propose granting Ronald commit access?
iam against it!
> His patches may need some review rounds to be acceptable, but he has a
> history of following through and beating them into shape. Also, there
he has a history of broken patches with alot of stuff never being approved
I see RDT and related code, 90% is not in svn
I see the url_split() patches, first cleanup (introduced a bug) and a
purpoted fix which introduced more bugs but all this is one page of code
Then the resolve_host() stuff, it should have been replaced by standard
(POSIX) functions, this never happened
various http improvements like seeking support, these did reach svn and
work fine AFAIK
Then there are many small fixes all over the place, these are nice ...
I certainly dont want to loose ronald as contributor, but iam scared of
him having direct svn write access!
Also theres the enourmiously painfull fighting with you if id choose to
revoke his account later in case it turns out that too much buggy code
reaches svn ...
If i just had a sourceforge like interface where i could close someones
account with a mouse click i would mind less to give write access out.
But with current root at mphq, no
> are a ton of his patches floating around and we have trouble getting all
> the approved ones applied. I always get confused which ones can be
> committed and which ones cannot. It would be a pity to have them slip
> through the cracks. Moreover he seems to intend to continue working on
> FFmpeg in the future.
I also have my problems keeping track of his patches, i think if he would
keep 1 patch per thread and never create a new thread for the same patch.
Nor post another patch in the same thread, it would be much easier to
keep track of his patches.
Anyway its not a big issue for me to commit approved patches from him myself.
> Admittedly, he is an auto* fanboy, but I'm sure we can make him stick
> to the party line eventually ;-p
The auto* fanboyism is not an issue.
Him commiting Makefile.am changes by mistake is neither a big thing.
First because he would have to svn add it first, and second because its
very noticeable and easily removed again.
Its messy and hackish code with subtle bugs that iam affraid of!
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel