[FFmpeg-cvslog] r17152 - in trunk: MAINTAINERS libavcodec/Makefile libavcodec/vdpau.c libavcodec/vdpauvideo.c libavcodec/xvmc.c libavcodec/xvmcvideo.c

[Diego Biurrun]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:13:20PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 2/11/09, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 05:00:51PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> >>> On 2/11/09, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> >>> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:06:30PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> >>> >> On 2/11/09, diego <subversion at mplayerhq.hu> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Log:
> >>> >> > Rename vdpauvideo.c --> vdpau.c and xvmcvideo.c --> xvmc.c to better
> >>> >> > fit
> >>> >> > the general libavcodec naming structure.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Revert that immediately
> >>> >
> >>> > Stop trolling already, there are people around here trying to get work
> >>> > done.  All you do is make other people's life's harder when you feel
> >>> > they are invading your territory.  You are neither acting rationally,
> >>> > nor being in any way constructive.  You just oppose any of my actions
> >>> > out of principle because you think I am a force of evil that must be
> >>> > stopped.  Stop this personal vendetta for good.
> >>>
> >>> You ignored all my explanations for the current naming.
> >>> You ignored my proposition for a better name.
> >>> You didn't even reply on my mail.
> >>
> >> Mans replied, that was plenty.  My patience is limited and as is plain
> >> to see, I have of other work to do that is keeping me busy.  Constructive
> >> work that will bring us some good in the form of a release.
> >> Can you claim the same?
> >>
> >>> > At least two devs are explicitly in favor of this, only you are against
> >>> > it.  We requested a similar change from Gwenole Beauche during the vaapi
> >>> > review process.  It would be hypocritical to request changes from patch
> >>> > submitters that we are unwilling to make on FFmpeg itself.
> >>>
> >>> The two devs are you and Mans. I refuted mans' logic for these changes.
> >>
> >> You refuted nothing.  One simply gets tired of replying to you over and
> >> over again.  You will not give in anyway, since I am at the other side of
> >> the table.  So why bother?
> >
> > So, why bother with reviewing patches at all?
> >
> > No really. If you think I am unfair to you, why don't you take
> > somebody I respect for arbiter?
> >
> > This project have active Project Leader that is the only competent
> > person to overrule (unreasonable) maintainer decision. Or have Mans
> > took that role too?
> 
> I fail to see why your opinion should matter at all.  For as long as
> can remember, you have done nothing but trolling.  The file in
> question may have been written by you, but the logs say that was 6
> years ago, and you have not touched it since in any significant way.
> 
> You keep asserting that you are maintainer of these files, yet you
> have, for several years, repeatedly refused or ignored requests to fix
> issues with them.  You thus forfeit you maintainership of the files,
> and your opinion no longer matters.

To give a specific example: When I posted about _t POSIX namespace
issues, all maintainers promptly fixed their files.  Ivan completely
ignored this and refused to cooperate even when asked to fix this on
IRC.  Instead he claimed that he would only help me if hell started
to freeze over.  As if fixing bugs in his code were related to helping
me...

If Ivan wants to be this way, fine.  However, it's ludicrous to expect
to have maintainer privileges without maintainer obligations.  If you
work on something, great, if you do not work on something, don't get
in the way of those that do.

Diego