Rémi Denis-Courmont (12023-12-07): > You have had heated arguments against Paul in recent times too. You have also > argued a lot of exercising your review privileges, which sounds like a very > libavish notion to me
Only because you were not there at the time to get a first-hand impression. That patches should be reviewed if possible was the policy way before libav. That came with a set of implicit rules: waiting a few days, then pinging, then waiting a few days and only then pushing without review. The role of maintainer would affect the reasonable value for “a few” days. Paul insistence on pushing after barely 24 hours on code with a maintainer that is not him always contradicting the way of doing things. Furthermore, his refusal to give more time to the maintainer when asked to is not just that: it is a level of rudeness and incivility incompatible with working together with other people. But Paul's attitude was annoying but never a real problem: resist his eagerness a little and soon he finds something else to do and forgets about pushing immediately for weeks or months. For reference, libav turned the practice that patches should be reviewed into a hard rule that patches must be reviewed. At the same time, since they had kicked out or disgusted a significant part of the projects' maintainers, they had nobody capable of actually reviewing the code. As a result, when a patch was proposed by a major libav contributor, after the ping somebody else who did not know the code would post a clueless “LGTM”. (The online archives of libav-devel seem to have disappeared, so I cannot link to the example I bookmarked.) -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".
