[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so

Måns Rullgård mans
Mon Jan 28 02:59:05 CET 2008

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:31:25AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> >> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:17:15AM +0100, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> >> >>> [...]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Since I've already tested that and shown it to work I see
>> >> >>> little reason to do that for all files when it seems
>> >> >>> unlikely to get included in FFmpeg anyway and I have no
>> >> >>> interest in maintaining a fork.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> FYI, I might be reconsidering my interest in it.
>> >> > 
>> >> > if theres anything i can do to help you, just say it!
>> >> > i really would like to finally fix the mov demuxer so it conforms to
>> >> > the API in respect to codec_tag
>> >> > 
>> >> 
>> >> All you will do is breaking stream copy.
>> >
>> > that doesnt work currently anyway, object ids are lost ...
>> > and dont fear i plan to change the muxer as well, i just wont do it
>> > as long as you are maintainer and actively opposing such a change
>> Does this mean that you intend to kick Baptiste out by force (not that
>> I know how you'd do that), or are you assuming you'll simply annoy him
>> enough that he finally leaves on his own accord?  Neither strikes me
>> as very friendly.
> neither
> I just meant that if baptiste steps back as mov maintainer or leaves or
> changes his mind about codec_tag then i will fix the codec_tag issue.
> If he does neither of the 3 ill keep refering people who complain to him.
> And about the "not that I know how you'd do that". How am i supposed to
> interpret this? Do you think that the fact that you volunteered
> as root gives you the power to decide who should have svn write access
> to the ffmpeg project?
> As you are just repeatly saying such things but so far have not misused
> that power ill interpret this as your short temper and ignore it. But
> be ashured should you misuse your power, ffmpeg would find a differnt
> server very quickly.

Let's just get one thing straight: FFmpeg != you.

FFmpeg, not existing as a legal/formal entity, is best defined by the
active developers at any given time.  You are but one of these
developers, and I dare say you are not essential to the project.  It
is not for you to decide who is or is not part of FFmpeg, nor where
FFmpeg is hosted.

Do not get me wrong; your contributions over the years have been of
value.  That does not, however, give you exclusive rights to FFmpeg,
and it certainly does not allow you to bully other developers.

If you feel that getting along with other people is too much of a
burden for you, I will not, and cannot, stop you forking FFmpeg.  Just
do not expect many to follow you.  That said, I sincerely hope that it
will not come to this.

As for my powers as admin of mphq, I feel it is my responsibility not
to take orders from any one person.  Not from you or from anyone else.
To add or remove svn write access for someone, there should be a
general agreement.  You having a quarrel with someone is not

M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list