[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader

Alex Converse alex.converse
Sun Oct 3 04:52:30 CEST 2010

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Baptiste Coudurier
<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/10 6:46 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Baptiste Coudurier
>> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/2/10 3:52 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Baptiste Coudurier
>>>> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/10 2:43 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Baptiste Coudurier
>>>>>> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I believe you are confusing "maintainers" and
>>>>>>> "contributors" here.
>>>>>> How exactly?
>>>>> Maintainers of the kernel are paid.
>>>> Some are, most are not:
>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS
>>> You have to be reasonable and compare what is comparable.
>>> Of course some drivers are maintained by people for fun. How active
>>> is the development on all these drivers ?
>> You are arguing for the sake of arguing
> And you are not ?
>> this has nothing to do with my original point, but I answered you
>> anyway, I probably shouldn't have.
> It has everything to do with your original point.
> You refuse to understand how and why the kernel can sustain the strict
> rules. I'm trying to explain to you, but this is getting hopeless.
>>>> We all are doing it on our free time. But fine, if you think
>>>> contributors by definition should receive more pain, then that
>>>> alone answers why git has more contributors than FFmpeg.
>>> You said that sending patches was great. Why are you now calling
>>> it "pain" ? Or do you implicitly agree with me ?
>> Sending patches is great... if the project has a good culture of
>> reviewing patches. You are the one that is saying sending patches is
>> painful, so I assume there's something wrong with the culture, and
>> my guess based on the comments from others is that that the problem
>> is bike-shedding.
> So, following your reasoning, we are actually giving more great time to
> contributors than maintainers ? This is perfect.
> Besides, why would there be something wrong about the culture because
> _I_ don't like sending patches ?
> The point is, maintainers are really welcome to send patches if they
> _want_ to, if they don't want to and it's on the code they maintain,
> they are _forced_ to. People can _always_ review on -cvslog and comments
> will always be addressed.
> This is better for maintainers, and IMHO given the situation of FFmpeg,
> it is better for the project.
>>> Can you please open your eyes, and realize that the adoption and
>>> usage of git cannot be compared to FFmpeg ?
>> In fact I think more people use FFmeg than git.
>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ffmpeg
>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=git
> Well, I don't think using debian users is accurate.
> Furthermore, git the program is installed as much as ffmpeg the program.
> And git will be shipped along Xcode 4.0
> libavcodec-dev ? Not that many.
> These stats are weird anyway, how come libavformat52 is more installed
> than libavcodec52 since the former depends on the latter, something is
> wrong here.
> google trends:
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=git%2C+ffmpeg
> See the huge difference ?

Google trends are retarded.

I see Daniel Whitney related news attached to the first git spike. And
git is so poplar in Turkey.... SVN must have been caught speaking
Kurdish in public.



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list