On 1/17/2025 11:42 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
James Almer (12025-01-17):Don't assume he will not extend the implementation. Ask him instead what he plans to do in the long term. And this could also be marked as experimental, in which case if abandoned or proven unstable for several real world cases, it can be removed or disabled.You were asking for proof that corporate-style mindset harms the project, you have one right here: “we do not want this new feature because it could mean bad PR” is one of the leitmotivs that have pushed the project towards stagnation since the GA has had influence.
I don't see how the GA has anything to do with this when we're talking about one person, but you're not wrong in that rejecting a feature for being incomplete is not ideal. The codebase is not lacking in partially implemented features and protocols, and as long as it's stable, is not invasive, and gracefully rejects unsupported scenarios, IMO it should be ok. But Kieran's requests should be addressed. And like i said, marking it as experimental is an option.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
