[FFmpeg-devel] Maintainership question

Ronald S. Bultje rsbultje
Sat Feb 12 19:39:26 CET 2011


On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Nicolas George
<nicolas.george at normalesup.org> wrote:
> Le quartidi 24 pluvi?se, an CCXIX, Ronald S. Bultje a ?crit?:
>> Generally, yes. We sometimes forget a patch, and yes I have patches of
>> you in my unread-mailbox waiting for me to have time to read them. I
>> hope to get to them this weekend, they are overdue. I apologize for
>> that.
> Of course, I do not think anyone will begrudge the committers to forget a
> patch in an overloaded mailbox.
>> Sort of, technical arguments will have me delay the patch and I don't
>> really do too many other personal dislikes on non-technical grounds.
>> This is not a humanities field. :-).
> I see. But let us assume that a Third person has reproaches against a patch
> that can not convince either the Submitter to withdraw it or the Maintainer
> to reject it. I suppose you will either consider the patch properly approved
> or intervene in the discussion?
> And the itchy part: does this still hold if the Third person is M?ns and
> Maintainer is Michael?
> If so, I think someone should commit
> 76ad67c ?Implement guessed_pts in avcodec_decode_video2
> d6705a2 ?ffplay: stats: do not dereference NULL video
> (possibly sqhashed into one).

Expanding over what Mans said, he had technical objections so this
whole thing is kind of meritless. You talk about arguments over
non-technical issues, which doesn't apply, and previously, Michael's
maintainership always had the rule that patches would be amended as
long as technical issues were raised.

So either with the "old" or the "new" "regime", the patch would not
have been acceptable. The part where Michael applies it just means he
doesn't consider Mans' technical objections. We'll leave the
significance of that statement for some other discussion.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list