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

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Mon Jan 28 15:18:36 CET 2008

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:15:56AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:31:07AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:59:05AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > 
> > > Let's just get one thing straight: FFmpeg != you.
> > 
> > I did not claim this, but ffmpeg is even less you. Still you threaten
> > to make decissions about ffmpegs developers based on what you think
> > is best or what you think is a consensus amongth the active developers.
> > Why is it that you think that your oppinion about a consensus amongth
> > the active developers is better than the ffmpeg maintainers oppionion
> > about a consensus amongth the active developers?
> > After all ive not acted against the oppinon of the majority ever
> > still you repeatly emphasize that you wont listen to me.
> That is not true, you act according to your own best judgement,
> regardless of where the majority lies.

I act according to the majority on the mailinglist normally, i guess you
might be able to find exceptions but this isnt that common. And certainly
never when it comes to organisatorial things like crating mailinglists, 
i might ignore a majority if its about code and sufficiently silly.
Root HAS ignored an overwhelming majority when there was a vote on uotis

Iam not on IRC. The majority there might differ.
If noone speaks up on the mailinglist i decide the way i think its best.
Thats still majority though (everyone else abstains)
If people dont speak up here, they shouldnt complain later.

> Note that I do not expect you to act according to majority opinion
> (whatever that may be) but if you think you do, you are mistaken.
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I do not bully anyone.
> That is not true, you are a bully.
> For example, you have been bullying me at every opportunity ever since I
> dared stand up to you because of your refusal to improve your spelling.
> Afterwards it seemed like you were trying your very best to make sure I
> regretted standing up to you.

hmm, if you see it that way, i must say i did not conciously intend to bully
you or anyone else. But i must say that you and mans did not skip an
oppertunity to bully me about the spelling.
Its strange how you attack others, that being me, ivan, arpi in the past
but then complain if someone like ivan turns around and fights back.
arpi left, do you plan to bully me until i leave as well?

also i feel people should send me a mail and complain if they think i treat
them unfairly. I dont remember anyone ever complained to me until now ...

> You have bullied Andreas ?man after he made another attempt at
> resurrecting the AAC decoder, threatening to revoke his account.

huh? i did not threaten him with revoking his account
i just (possibly in a somewhat aggressive) way pointed at the fact that
changing files by svn add is a svn policy violation. He never asked
about this before on the soc mailing list, which i think would have
been at least appropriate for such a controversal change. Again
not all people are on IRC

> He made a good faith attempt to do the right thing, now he is
> discouraged from further working on it.

Thank you for making me responsible for him not working on the code.
The last he said in the thread was:
> about the audio API, i dunno but i dont think it makes sense to delay (all)
> audio decoders until some audio mixing API has been finished ...

I agree on that. I'll continue to work with the aac-decoder in the
current repo. First thing is to fix the current known bug.

Secondly, the small annoying bugs that's I initially imagined
would be "fixed" by an audio API could be fixed quite easy anyway.

this doesnt sound like i scared him away to me ...

> More examples could be found, but that's beside the point.  You may not
> feel like you're a bully, but I can assure you that the people on the
> receiving end feel different and that few people dare stand up to you.

> > > 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.  
> > 
> > I have no problem at all getting along with people, i do not even have
> > a problem getting along with you as developer. I have a serious problem
> > getting along with root at mphq and their decissions not matching democratic
> > majority, general consensus nor the maintainers oppinion sometimes.
> This constant bickering against root is nonsense.  None of the roots has
> ever taken such a decision.  Also, you intentionally commingle three
> very different persons during your infamous root@ rants.  I fail to
> understand why.

* non creation of the win32 mailinglist
* not following democratic vote on mplayer-dev-eng about uotis account
* not creating the ffmpeg-issues mailing list when i and luca asked

iam sure i could find more ...

> > > Just do not expect many to follow you.  That said, I sincerely hope
> > > that it will not come to this.
> > 
> > Who except me reviews patches?
> Hey, I review patches all the time! ;-)

help me with reviewing the mms patch please, i would love to see mms support
in svn but i think the patch needs some heavy cleanup especially in the
sense of removing the state machine or at least limmiting its spread over
the files

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

If you really think that XML is the answer, then you definitly missunderstood
the question -- Attila Kinali
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080128/27c20697/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list