[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader
Sat Oct 2 17:27:13 CEST 2010
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:47:44PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:17:50PM +0200, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 02:25:35PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > This is untrue
> > > the assert changes have been discussed a long time ago with noone caring.
> > The idea, but not the implementation certainly. Which really left a
> > lot to be desired (relative to the amount of code). To me it looked a
> > lot like you couldn't be bothered to review your own code before
> > committing, in which case you could have sent a patch in the unlikely
> > case someone else felt inclined to do the effort.
> i did read through it before commit and i run the reg tests
> the formating of that one line i apparently did not conciously realize
> and typo i simply have missed. I admit that i was not very motivated
> during reviewing my own trivial code.
You know I do enough silly things like that that I wouldn't pick
up a pitchfork due to it, but that the code seemed a bit sloppy
made me consider your reaction to M?ns behaviour a bit extreme
(I have myself just commited to code maintained by others
after they did a commmit I considered crap. I may have been
the wrong thing to do, but I can very much understand such
> But as said elsewhere i will post more patches from now on to make
> people happy
Note that I was trying to say it more positively. Kind of like
"hey, if you don't have the motiviation to really review your code,
just post the patch for someone else to do it."
In the worst case you can at least blame us if it is still bad when
you commit it :-).
> id also appreciate if the people who complain so loud now
> would then also properly review them
Thing is, most of the time we don't really have much more to say
than "looks ok", and that seems a bit pointless to write.
But you can't always know before if it's one of those "most of
the time" cases or not.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel