[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCHv3] On2 VP7 decoder

Clément Bœsch u at pkh.me
Sun Mar 30 10:53:33 CEST 2014

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:14:47AM +0200, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:24:03AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> >>
> >> You definitely are a Libav user, as is every ffmpeg developer and
> >> user, as you merge every day whatever change Libav provides.
> >> The fact that you can accept
> >
> > thats a game of words where you use a different definition of user.
> > also called a strawman argument
> No, you decided to be a Libav downstream (and can't deny that) but
> take any occasion to bash Libav itself and its developers. You don't
> like that, so you have no other option than insulting and criticizing
> Libav devs (like you do below), so maybe it's you... grasping at
> straws ;)

We can deny that. Let's play the game of words with you; we just need to
consider Libav a special branch which is not very compliant in rebasing
its work on the upstream.

> > Noone disputes that people using FFmpeg also use code developed by
> > libav developers but that doesnt imply that they use the
> > unmodified libav.
> Say what you want, ffmpeg is still behaving like a bad downstream that
> doesn't propagate patches upstream and harms users and devs for its
> own childish benefit.

You don't either. Also, it's not like FFmpeg was a secret project that no
Libav developer knows. Every single Libav developer is aware of FFmpeg. So
if you're interested in what's done there, just follow developement and
don't ask us to do twice the work we already do for FFmpeg.

> >> > I did very rarely test it for sake of an argument or for some
> >> > statistics only ...
> >> >
> >> > So really the only place i could find an issue is in ffmpeg and
> >> > if i do, it goes either as bugfix patch to the ML, as bugfix commit to
> >> > git master, as ticket to trac or on my todo list for doing one of the
> >> > previous once i have time
> >>
> >> The point is that this daily merge from Libav to ffmpeg also allows to
> >> fix bugs sometimes and this is good, but the problem is that these
> >> seldom bugfixes remain here while they should be reported to the
> >> original author at least. This should be done in the spirit of open
> >> source contribution, not in the "my project has more features and more
> >> bugfixes".
> >
> > Lets see
> > FFmpeg merges from libav the commits as they are and we fix issues
> > in them as seperate commits on top of that. Keeping the code that
> > was taken from libav and each change on top of that seperate.
> And, don't forget, you are also increasing your commit count so you
> can brag that ffmpeg has higher number of commits and (more
> importantly) you're not sending the patches upstream where they could
> be shared with other users.
> > OTOH
> > Libav takes code from FFmpeg and rebases and stashes fixes and
> > improvments together so that noone can afterwards easily see what was
> > changed and why.
> Nice troll attempt, but won't work. Rather than having an horrible
> source history like ffmpeg where you see every commit alternated with
> a merge

This is for the respect of the author, keeping track of what's merged and
what's not, simplify git bisect, and probably more.

> (btw why the name qatar? are you afraid to use Libav name?)

Libav is a confusing name chosen in purpose. "qatar" is from a Libav 1st
april joke, and it's just a more obvious name. It doesn't hurt. We are not
afraid of using Libav, we even mention you at every release on ffmpeg.org.

> and makes git blame/history tracking MUCH harder, Libav prefers to
> have linear history with *single* *atomic* patches (as much as
> possible).

This doesn't work well with commit authorship.

Also, very funny of you to mention git blame killer when roughly 10% of
the commit in Libav are spaces shuffling and file moves.

> > And yes i would suggest that all libav developers just join ffmpeg,
> > end the split and noone has to do duplicate work, testing and
> > reporting.
> Cool, that must be the reason why every new Libav contributor gets an
> email saying that it's useless to contribute and that ffmpeg is so
> much better, so they should be contributing to it instead.

That's why you do the same with our contributors? I see no problem with
that, except the lies you put into those mails though.

> I think the exact opposite, since ffmpeg merges everything from Libav,
> there is little point in sending patches to ffmpeg in the first place,
> but I also think that everyone is free to do whatever they want, so
> I'm totally fine with that.

Nice to see you condemning FFmpeg merging for Libav all the times, and now
suddenly use it at your advantage.

> > Even more ironic, iam sure most libav developers would be happier had
> > the fork never happened but it did and now people seem stuck in that
> > split ...
> Libav developers are quite happy thanks, but would probably do better
> without the insults, trashing and bad PR received here for no
> particular reason. Ironically I am sure most ffmpeg developers would
> be happier if the continuous merging would not continue.

Libav has been derping publicly about MiNi and FFmpeg since the beginning.
Don't be surprised if the reverse is also true.

> Incidentally I think that everyone would have been happier if you
> respected the rules and stepped down as project leader when the
> majority of developers voted against you back then. That would have
> most likely prevented the fork in the first place...

You're rewriting history.


Clément B.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20140330/9336be0b/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list