On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:53:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 08/14/2014 11:59 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > > On 08/14/2014 11:27 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > >> On 08/13/2014 07:53 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > > > >> On 08/13/2014 06:30 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > >>> Also ive offered my resignation in the past. I do still offer to > >>> resign from the FFmpeg leader position, if it resolves this split > >>> between FFmpeg and Libav and make everyone work together again. > > > >> Why not just take the offer, and move on? > > > > Probably because of the condition he attached to it, which also dates > > back to the arguments preceding the original split: > > > >>> The part i insist on though is that everyone must be able to work > >>> on their code without people uninvolved in that specific parts > >>> maintaince or authorship being able to block their work. > > > > In other words, as I think I understand it from the discussion back > > then: people not involved with a particular area of the code can't NACK > > the work of someone who is working on it, and someone who works on a > > particular area of the code doesn't have to wait on review of people who > > aren't involved with that area of the code. > > > > Since one of the motivations of the people behind the libav side of the > > split seems, IIRC, to have been "no code gets in without having been > > reviewed by someone other than the author", this was apparently deemed > > an unacceptable condition. > > Hum... Well, to me, what's important is that the code gets > peer-reviewed.
Yes, the tricky part in FFmpeg and Libav in relation to this is that theres quite a bit of code that is only well understood by a single person even if you would combine both projects together. So if that person posts a patch for review, theres noone who could do a real review > Setting-up something like gerrit may help, as it can be > setup in a way that review becomes mandatory. Then discussing who's > core-reviewer and can approve this or that part of the code can be setup > within gerrit. This should be discussed, and setup based on technical merit. Not commenting about gerrit as i dont have experience with it, but FFmpeg currently uses a simple file in main ffmpeg git that lists which part is maintained by whom, and these developers would in the rare case of a dispute have the final say in each area. OTOH, Libav early deleted their forked version of this file, and iam not aware of any replacement. But others should explain how it works in Libav ... > > Having a NACK review is often disappointing. It goes the wrong way if > there's only a NACK with no comments on how to improve things, so that > the code becomes acceptable. > Absolutely everyone should *always* be able > to leave comments, be it positive or negative. yes, i fully agree and this also was always so in FFmpeg. In that sense everyone is welcome to subscribe to ffmpeg-devel and review and comment patches. That of course includes Libav developers and everyone else. And more reviewers would also certainly help, so yeah anyone reading this and wanting to help review patches, you are welcome! Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB it is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
