[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so
Tue Jan 29 11:41:34 CET 2008
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:46:31AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:42:17AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:18:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > 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.
> > What is "the majority of the mailing list"? A majority of the
> > developers disagreed with you about spelling,
> And iam trying to spell correctly, so ive followed that request.
> You can claim iam not good enough, and you can also claim i dont
> reread what i write 5 times. But dont claim i dont try to spell
> correctly. That just is a unjustified attack.
I was speaking in the past tense. You are certainly improving nowadays
(and this is both noted and appreciated), at least when writing
documentation, but your contractions ("iam", etc.) are still there. If
you could get rid of those, bliss would be all around me ;)
> > a majority also has a
> > different attitude towards compiler warnings,
> Please start a vote on this, no iam serious
> if >50% of the developers are in favor of
> "lets remove as many warnings as possible as long as it doesnt slow down
> the code, makes it unreadable or bloated" then iam not against adding such
> a rule to the policy and following it
I don't like votings to begin with, but I would surely like to see the
topic discussed again. If we can come to the consensus you delineate
above I would surely be happy.
I'll start a discussion, your wish is my command.
> > I'm not even sure a
> > majority shares your super-strict coding standards.
> What are "super-strict coding standards" ?
> I cant comment on such vague concepts
You don't have to, it's vague.
> > But this is besides the point. I do not think of this project as a
> > democracy, nor do I expect it to be one. It is a dictatorship with you
> > - the benevolent dictator sometimes affectionately referred to as "evil
> > overlord" ;p - at its helm. However, if you think of it as anything
> > else, you are mistaken.
> Iam only ffmpeg leader/evil overlord as long as people want me to be that.
> People can just leave or fork or even start a vote to elect someone else.
> I would step back from my position as ffmpeg leader if a majority of
> developers would want that.
> The term dictator is a little out of place
The term "dictator" or "benevolent dictator" is a commonly used term in
OSS projects so I don't think it bears connotations to 20th century
You are correct, you are dictator only as long as we let you be dictator
or until we complain. Well, I'm voicing my opinion now. All you have
to do is listen, which you do...
> IMO, i cant dictate anything. Not even the svn accounts easily since the
> takeover of root at mphq by you and mans.
> In this respect you and mans are the dictators, your decissions arbitary
> not based on a vote, not based on an elected position. Just by the fact
> that you volunteered as root. Hidden behind shiny terms like "meritocracy"
> where is your merrit for the position of deciding who should have write
> And yes we happened to agree on who should have write access so far. Or
> at least root followed my requests so far about it.
You seem to be commingling a bunch of different issues here.
I have never decided who shall have commit privileges to FFmpeg, nor
questioned your decision on the subject. Neither is there grounds to
believe that I would. Also, I have never thrown around the term
meritocracy in this context.
The root team was composed from people that
- volunteered to do the job
- had some experience as admins
- were generally trusted
It's not like we had an excess of candidates, on the contrary. Plus it
takes up quite a bit of time, especially in the beginning.
There was no "takeover" and there is no dictatorship. We are in the
position only for as long as people trust us and want us to keep it. As
you will remember Attila and I offered to resign last year. A vote of
confidence kept us in office.
> I dont mind being called evil overlord, the term is cute and maybe i should
> put a sign with it on my door :)
> > > 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 ...
> > As I said, few people dare stand up to you.
> Thats something i can not do much about.
Sure you can, read what Robert wrote in this thread. If you say that
people do not dare to stand up to me I will surely try to listen to
suggestions on how to improve the situation.
> > > * not following democratic vote on mplayer-dev-eng about uotis account
> > Democracy is more than just voting, you need a constitution. You could
> > say that the policy document is such a thing, but it says nothing about
> > voting or when an account should or will be revoked.
> You dont need a constitution, a constitution can help clarify some things
> but its not strictly essential. Any group of N people can just vote about
> something without writing a constitution first.
That assumes that they agree who should have a right to vote on what and
when. Rich made some good points about this in his email.
> > MPlayer is not a democracy. It used to be a dictatorship run by Arpi,
> > nowadays decisions are taken based on consensus, for better or worse.
> > That voting was a bad idea in the first place and it was never clear who
> > should be allowed to vote on what grounds, but all of this is besides
> > the point.
> At the point where you claim that voting failed to reach the same result
> as your consensus, you admit that your consensus is based on a selected
> minority. That being fairly obvious per definition as the majority voted
> And this is just another way of saying you acted based on your personal
> oppinion not on what the majority wanted.
> And yes you did call everyone on the phone back then and convinced us
> its better the way you like it. But there was no second vote confirming
> that new "consensus".
Having a vote to confirm a consensus is a contradiction in itself.
There is no doubt that the consensus was accepted, after all, the worst
flaming in history suddenly died down. If that is not a proof, nothing
I'll also have to note that the results of said vote, contrary to what
you have claimed at various other points, were not unanimous. You
can chalk it up to bad memory or bad English, unanimous means no votes
against. This is not at all true.
Also, when you say I acted based on my personal opinion, remember that
the accusatory finger still points right back at you, who supported and
announced the consensus.
> > In the end a consensus was reached not to revoke Uoti's account. You
> > were a pivotal part of that decision and you announced it on the mailing
> > list. You may regret your role now, but you cannot renounce it.
> > When you point a finger at me (because that's what you do when you
> > speak of root@) and accuse me of evil deeds, that finger is pointing
> > right back at you.
> Well you convinced me to write this when you called me.
Well, too late then. You're fully responsible for your actions, I never
pointed a gun at you. You've got a 50% share of the blame/praise,
assume it. Don't pretend you had nothing to do with it. If the vote
was "bent" as you claim, you bent it as much as I did. You may have
formed regrets later on, but that does not excuse you from your
> > > iam sure i could find more ...
> > No, you could not. What's more, I could find countless times where we
> > have provided swift and high-quality service to this project. In fact,
> > you are the only person that has ever complained.
> People are affraid to stand up and voice their oppinion against root.
> There are several who have voiced their oppinion per private mail to me
> about root and you personally.
What would they have to fear? This sounds very much like you are just
turning some of the arguments used against you around.
But as I said above, I will surely try to listen to suggestions on how
to improve the situation.
> > And you still haven't answered why you are batching us together into a
> > faceless root@ conglomerate.
> Because i mean root@, if id mean a specific member id use his name.
> All members of root@ have to take equal responsibiliy for roots actions
> IMO. It would be wrong to blame a single member.
Nonsense. For a start, Mans has nothing to do with MPlayer. He does
not want to get involved into any brawls going on there, nor should he.
Also note that while all of us do a bit of everything, we have split the
responsibilities/tasks somewhat and each one works fastest in his area.
I take care of Subversion, Attila mail, Mans web server.
> > Anyway, I'm not trying to pour gasoline on the flames here.
> Oddly, i dont have that feeling at all.
What do you expect me to do when you keep pulling skeletons out of the
closet? At some point I have to set the facts straight whether I like
it or not otherwise people will believe what you say is true.
I would *very much* like to put this to rest *for good*, but for this I
need your cooperation.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel