[FFmpeg-devel] [DECISION] Revoke the decision of dropping ffserver
Carl Eugen Hoyos
ceffmpeg at gmail.com
Mon Dec 5 16:45:16 EET 2016
2016-12-05 15:23 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
> On 12/5/2016 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2016-11-29 21:53 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>> On 11/29/2016 5:41 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>> 2016-11-29 21:11 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>>>> He's trying to override an announced project decision of removing a feature.
>>>> We - obviously - announced it to find somebody who would fix the issues
>>>> raised. If they are fixed, the "decision" is of course void, and we don't
>>>> have to vote about it.
>>> That's not what was announced, at all. Please, read the news entry in question
>>> and inform yourself in the subject before trying to participate in a discussion.
>> That is exactly what I would like you to do.
>> What else would have been the reason for the announcement?
> How about you actually *try* reading the news entry, instead of passing the
> ball? You might just find out if you do it carefully and pay attention to
> each sentence. Especially the part where it invites people to write a
> replacement, and says nothing about voiding the decision if "issues are
I did not claim that the news entry says that the issues should be fixed,
I wrote that the only reasonable base on which the entry was written is
imo the search for somebody to fix the issues.
Or are you arguing that ffserver should be removed because some
developers don't like it?
>> I believe that it is absolutely unacceptable to remove a used feature of
>> FFmpeg without a technical reason and I therefore believe that this
>> vote does not make much sense.
> The technical reasons are there, described in the news entry you seem to
> not want to read, or at least properly parse.
> These past week however saw one developer working against the clock doing
> what the actual people interested in ffserver should have done for the past
> few months and even years. That is, he addressed most, but not all, of those
> and other reasons.
Which reasons were not adressed?
> You and Nicolas sure love your historical revisionism.
I am sure you know that I was strongly against adding mailing list rules.
But if you continue calling people names in this thread, I suggest you go
More information about the ffmpeg-devel