[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] rtsp - alternate protocol
Wed Jan 2 20:01:00 CET 2008
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:54:26AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 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 Then the resolve_host() stuff, it should have been replaced by standard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!
All of this would only be a problem if he committed non-approved patches.
Avoiding this cannot be so hard, can it?
> 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.
Then please commit them, because many patches are being dropped on the
floor, which is very unfortunate.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel