[FFmpeg-devel] release work
Frans de Boer
Sun Feb 1 05:18:57 CET 2009
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 19:48 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> Frans de Boer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 02:43 +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Frans de Boer <frans at fransdb.nl> writes:
> >>> Personal note: Some time ago I forced the FFmpeg community to tell the
> >>> public what the last version was of their so called v51 sources. I
> >> I can assure you, that you have forced us to do nothing at all. I do
> >> remember you busting in here, shouting about how we should be doing
> >> things. If I remember correctly, you were thoroughly ridiculed and
> >> sent back under the rock from whence you came. I'll do it again if
> >> you tempt me.
> > Oh, mister Mans, please forgive me that I laugh at your remark. You seem
> > to be the typical 'engineer' if I recall correctly. I had private
> > e-mails of others who 'warned' me of you and your way of communicating.
> > if you want to make it personal, bite me!!
> >>> mentioned also something about releases and version control. I mean,
> >>> what is the use of having version control systems if you don't share the
> >>> version changes properly with your public?
> >> I don't understand what you mean. Version control is useful to any
> >> developer. Our version control system is open to the public, so they
> >> can always have the latest source code. We feel that this benefits
> >> both sides since users get new features and bug fixes quicker, and it
> >> is easier for others to contribute patches. The use of, and the
> >> openness of, a version control system has little, if anything, to do
> >> with release management per se. A good version control system can of
> >> course aid in making and maintaining releases through tagging,
> >> branching etc.
> > Yes, I agree. But providing usable and stable sources to your intended
> > public - not being your co-developers - is not the same as opening up
> > your svn/git repositories.
> Can you please define our "intended" public ?
> What is wrong if the "intended" public is co-developers ?
There is nothing wrong with the fact that for some the 'intended public'
are co-developers. My main complaint is that as a co-developer you are
not alone and thus communications with the 'intended public', namely the
people who are using your code (say consumers), should be more
considered. I know that some of you are only involved to show to others
how good you can be. But the project as a whole is - I think - not to
please some individual ego's, but rather to provide a solution to the
broader public, albeit not exactly the average end-user.
If the only aim is to please individual ego's, please make it clear that
FFmpeg is not being intended for others to use. What leaves others who
do use the FFmpeg code like mplayer or cinelerra in the dark.
> >>> So, I am pleased that the FFMPEG community is getting more mature and
> >> We'd be pleased if you could spell FFmpeg correctly.
> >>> finally accepts the idea that coding is one thing, communications is a
> >>> whole different ball game preferably left to people who have learned how
> >>> to communicate with none-developers albeit (sometimes) seasoned
> >>> engineers.
> >> An engineer who doesn't do development at some level is no engineer.
> >>> As a old-time developer myself I feel that you can't just output sources
> >> You can't stop calling on your "vast" experience to prove your points,
> >> can you?
> > Can you? My point is that I know this engineering world but have grown
> > beyond it and thus understand that no matter how good one can be at a
> > given taks, it all boils down being able to effectively communicate.
> It again all depends on your objectives, you seem pretty much
> narrow-minded on your "business" engineering world. You know, money,
> customer satisfaction, etc...
> FFmpeg is not a product sold by a company AFAIK.
Again, what is the aim of the project? To satisfy some personal ego's or
the public as stated above?
> >>> to the public as is. You have a (morale) obligation to make sure that
> >>> your code is correct and relatively stable.
> >> We have no obligations whatsoever, moral or otherwise. Our license
> >> terms make that quite clear. If you do not agree to those terms,
> >> please do not use our code.
> > Hm, truly spoken as an engineer without to much contacts to the real
> > world.
> How can you dare making assumptions like this one ? Please refrain.
When I feel personal being attacked, I do NOT refrain. Beside, it's not
an assumption but merely an observation. You make it an assumption.
> > My opinion: if you don't care about your public, hush up and stay
> > in your dark corner inventing/developing the marbles others can use. Let
> > PR in the hands of those who do care.
> People caring of the public are free and welcome to have relations with
> them, and be intermediates, but in absolutely no case, they should annoy
> others not caring, and even more important, they should ensure that
> communication goes well, at the end, to these people.
> By seeing your communication, I honestly think you really fail at the
> second part.
Maybe you are right. I am not the very best communicator, but engineers
in general are known to be (very) bad communicators in general
(exceptions excluded of course). But at least I am trying.
Building relations is only possible if the engineering mind would not be
so .... restricted to engineering alone. That's what I call narrow
More information about the ffmpeg-devel