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

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Tue Jan 29 15:26:34 CET 2008

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:56:07AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > threats do as well. Had you no svn write access it would be a mere single
> > reply with "doesnt work with gcc 2.95" and the issue would be closed.
> And development wouldn't progress either. You think gcc 2.95 support is
> more important than the things I've done for MPlayer?

Yes, thats what i think. I also think others could have done the same
in the time they wasted in flames and extra work caused directly or
indirectly by you.

> > Third, you repeatly said you act by your own rules and dont care about
> > the policy if it differs from what you consider best.
> I don't care what is written in the policy document. 

Thats what i meant.

> It's not written
> with such detail that it could be reasonably applied to every case
> without exceptions, nor is there a working system for deciding the
> contents in case people disagree what they should be. It's not suitable
> for deciding cases where there is genuine disagreement about how
> development should be done. It also has obviously bad rules that nobody
> else follows either ("you must leave incorrect indentation in the
> code").
> Referring to "the policy" is just an invalid try to argue by appeal to
> authority in cases where you think something should be done in a certain
> way because that's how you did it before.
> >  Now one can argue
> > if the policy is good or bad (i consider it quite good) but having a
> > developer living and acting by his own rules causes serious problems.
> > It partly works out as long as its just one person and he is rather inactive.
> How many developers are not "rather inactive" by your criteria?

Most are rather inactive, and i had the feeling that the vote and especially
the following things did worsen that further.

> > Where there two with such an attitide things would get really messy.
> That's what you claim, but that doesn't make it true. I don't insist
> that everyone do things the way I do (so claiming that multiple people
> with my attitude would necessarily cause conflicts would be false). Most
> of the flaming has been triggered by people who do little development
> themselves, and whose own minimal development almost certainly will not
> be affected one way or another by how I work, but who still try to force
> me to do it the way they want.
> Take for example the command.c creation which made you try to get my
> account closed and which you've used as an example of what "bad" things
> I've done. That didn't break functionality, worsen source quality or
> prevent others from doing development. No, what upset you was that I was
> not willing to do it the way you wanted. I have not flamed others who
> have done similarly useful things, not even if they didn't do them the
> way I considered best. If there were more people with my attitude (and
> skills to actually do changes like that) MPlayer would just improve
> faster.

The command.c creation was a 221k change which was mostly cosmetics but
contained significant functional changes as well. Completely unreviewable.
Other developers had to split and redo the whole cleanly as you refused to.
And you were unanimously asked to revert/clean it up it was not just me
but pretty much all other active developers.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates
-------------- 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/20080129/2881abde/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list