[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader
Sat Oct 2 22:25:14 CEST 2010
On 10/2/10 5:29 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Baptiste Coudurier
> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I believe we agree that maintainers are free to apply patches on the
>>> files they maintain, but in general there should be some exceptions to
>>> this rule. Such exceptions may arise when:
>>> * the change affects the policy or the style of the project
>>> * the change is no trivial, so it may benefit from peer-review
>>> * the change affects other code not maintained by the committer *or*
>>> the public interface
>> Please let's be reasonable. We are all here for fun (for now at least).
>> Given the man power available, given the work, we cannot reasonably
>> enforce strict rules like you would do in projects like the kernel,
>> where day jobs and money are involved, let's face it.
> This rule, or guideline rather, ensures code quality, and fairness. I
> don't see how sending patches to the mailing list first would be any
> less fun... it tells the community "I care what you think, and I care
> about the quality of this code'.
Well, it seems you are part of this "community", did you ever review a
patch on ffmpeg-devel that you didn't send ?
> Also, you are assuming (for some strange reason) that everybody that
> works in the kernel is doing so because they are getting paid; I think
> you are completely wrong. People contribute to linux mainly because
> it's fun, and challenging, and it matters. Some people coincidentally
> do get paid, but they anyway keep contributing on their own free time,
> abiding by the same rules. And the majority of people are not paid in
> any way:
I believe you are confusing "maintainers" and "contributors" here.
> And what about projects like git? Or vlc? The developers surely don't
> get paid for contributing, and still send each and every patch (or
I didn't say developers on git were paid, I don't know about that.
Like I already said git is a major project, and cannot be compared to
FFmpeg in man power, number of active contributors, nor maintainers.
VLC is more like FFmpeg and they are far from sending each and every
It seems the situation changed, but back in days vlc-devel contained
only commits, so I don't know where the review happened.
> It should be fun for you to receive constructive criticism from your
> peers, which in the case of FFmpeg, constitutes very highly skilled
> individuals, perhaps the best in the world in multimedia, I don't see
> how you would find it more exciting to pass the opportunity of getting
> such valuable feedback.
>> Nobody "sneaks" in commits thinking nobody will have a look, and I don't
>> think it hurts the community nor depreciate any other developer.
>> About maintainership, I trust all of them are doing their best to ensure
>> their parts are in good shape and review patches. Most people review in
>> -cvslog like I said, and important issues are always quickly addressed.
> By the time it hits the SCM it's too late, it has tainted the
> history... forever. Why would you want to do that if you already have
> an alternative that works in so many other projects?
May I ask you why you think it "taints" the history ?
I don't mind having mistakes in the commit logs, because it shows
honesty, nobody is perfect.
Now using git could help greatly here. ALl maintainers would have their
own tree, and cherry-picking from maintainers' tree to the main tree
maintained by Michael would be a lot easier IMHO.
Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer http://www.ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel