On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 06:58:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: [...] > Second, how do you propose this arrangement will actually function? As you > probably know, I see many of the API additions done in your project as ugly > hacks, and would be strongly opposed to having them in our tree in their > current > form. Conversely, some API changes done in Libav were AFAIK rejected by your > leader. So -- what happens when one side proposes a change that the other side > fundamentally disagrees with.
Note that the motivation here is not to have any "contract" (at least how I envision it). This means that both sides will be free to ignore the other or even not submit to the mailing-list. Basically, it's a DMZ for people not willing to enter in any fight but still would like to smooth the API issues between the two projects. One example could be for example that you would submit a patchset about codec parameters to that mailing-list. This will provide FFmpeg developers some insight about your changes (this is interesting only for us), but on the other hand since we will very likely integrate it we will be more concerned about reviewing your changes and more inclined to raise issues with it. You will of course be free to ignore completely, but that provides an open communication ground, and would avoid the multiple cases where FFmpeg fixed some problems in your code without notifying "the Upstream". Now the other way around, let's say I'm submitting a new API for subtitles, it means you will hear about it. This means you will be able to suggest changes so it is up to Libav expectations, and so might simplify an eventual cherry-pick in the future. It also makes you aware of what's available in FFmpeg. Again, I'm free to ignore it, even thought that might not be in my interest. [...] -- Clément B.
pgpzLFUAdtJKv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
