On Thu May 2, 2024 at 10:06 PM CEST, epirat07 wrote: > On 2 May 2024, at 21:32, Ondřej Fiala wrote: > > Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client > > can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used > > to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic > > shell > > scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things. > > So I first have to get proficient in some shell scripting gymnastics Are you serious that as an open-source dev, you can't even write such a trivial shell function?
> (and also switch to a completely different terminal-based mail client) > so I can do proper reviews? You can use any mail client that works well for you, I just showed what I personally like. I remember seeing Greg KH (IIRC) using mutt for the same purpose and I am sure it worked well for him as well. This is quite unlike the GitHub/GitLab situation where if you use anything other than a recent mainstream browser, it does not work AT ALL. > Thats incredibly gatekeeping. Hardly. > > Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put > > together > > a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a > > patch > > and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other > > things to > > adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a > > demo; > > I am sure you could come up with something better. > > > > [1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends > > That seems to download some binary file? I have no idea what it is supposed > to be. Sorry about that; the site picked the filename and I forgot to say that it's an mkv file. Just save it with an `.mkv` suffix and play it with ffplay or similar. > >> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a > >> good > >> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP. > >> > >> You are just being unwittingly elistist here. > > I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be > > when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such > > issues. > > > > But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from > > email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember > > how > > I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a > > Firefox > > fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you > > don't > > care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app" > > that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is > > excluded. > > When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to > > download > > mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I > > wouldn't bother. > > > > So how is that any different? > > How is it different to download a well maintained recent software and open a > website, > in comparison to learn how to setup a (complex) combination of tools just to > be able > to easily contribute? It's not a complex combination; it's just git, an email client, and standard command line tooling. But sure, if you don't even know basic shell, it might seem complex. I assumed anyone contributing to a C library with accompanying command-line utilities would know such basics. _______________________________________________ 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".
