> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 8:49 PM > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Politics > > 13 Dec 2021, 19:26 by softwo...@hotmail.com: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jean-Baptiste Kempf <j...@videolan.org> > >> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:01 PM > >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > >> Cc: Soft Works <softwo...@hotmail.com> > >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Politics > >> > >> Hello Softworkz > >> > >> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021, at 07:15, Soft Works wrote: > >> > yesterday, it happened for the 4th and 5th times that another developer > >> > called my patchset a “hack”. > >> > > >> > In none of the 4 cases, anybody was able to give even a single reason. > >> > My assessment is that when a skilled developer is unable to explain > >> > such opinions, these are possibly not one’s own opinions. Given that > >> > it happened 5 times, that turns possibly into a “very likely” IMO. > >> > >> You can call the TC for those kind of things, if needed, if you don't get > any > >> answer. > >> > > > > Yup, thanks, I will. The motivation for this is not about being > dissatisfied > > or wanting to enforce anything. It's a significant change and I think it > makes > > perfect sense in that case to have a democratic decision about it. > > Everyone should make her or his own decision whether or not this should > > be added or not and whatever the outcome will be, it will be driven by > > a majority. > > > > Doing this in a timely way would be my personal wish, as it will allow > > me to prioritize the focus of my work and avoid wasting time on the > > submission here, in case it would not be wanted by a majority. > > > > Practically everyone who's tuned in has told you it's not acceptable > in this current state. Calling the TC now won't do anything but waste > everyone's time.
If your "we-speech" reflects a majority, then there's nothing to be afraid of. > I even told you in the gentlest possible way that > what we're looking for is something else. Please, do the changes > that we've been asking you to do for months, which you avoided doing, That's incorrect. The things that are left on the table have just come up very recently. Besides that, I'm not taking orders from you or anybody. I'm always open to discussion and suggestions and I have followed all of the suggestions that have been made, except that last one standing, which is the subtitle_pts field. Yet, I won't change this and I have explained why. You still seem to be assuming that you can put of any conditions to your liking as you're (plural) usually doing. I'm afraid, but that doesn't work in this case because I have no need for this to get into ffmpeg. My work will be completed successfully in either case. As mentioned already, I have an offer to make. It might not be exactly what you want, but it's all you can get. Everybody will need to make up his mind and decide whether the benefits will outweigh the drawback from one's own point of view - or not. In the latter case, I will retract/revoke my patchset and walk away in peace. Kind regards, softworkz _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
