[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Sun Oct 3 04:59:14 CEST 2010

On 10/2/10 7:52 PM, Alex Converse wrote:
> 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.

Right, indeed that was stupid on my part.

Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer                                  http://www.ffmpeg.org

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list