> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > Michael Niedermayer > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 2:26 AM > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg- > de...@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
> I dont know why the options are exclusive. One can add a Forgejo on > ffmpeg.org > but leave the Mailing List/Patch Workflow in place for cases where > the > maintainer or patch author prefers a ML workflow. How is that supposed to work when the contributor is submitting to Forgejo (or whatever) and the maintainer uses the ML? How do they communicate? How does the maintainer get notified that there's a PR available to fetch? And how does the maintainer comment on code when it wasn't sent to the ML? Finally, how do the review comments flow back to the modern system? The only solution I know about which can do this is GitGitGadget (used by the developers of Git itself) which I have adapted and set up (https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg/wiki). But this is still limited as it doesn't send PR comments back to the ML and it doesn't support mirroring patchsets from the ML back to GitHub and comments from GitHub back to the ML. Personally though, I'm still quite satisfied with this path as it removes the pain in sending out patch e-mails (and multiple versions) and I can view comments from others nicely on GitHub and in the context of the full files. There are still so many other advantages in moving away from the ML procedure, but I'll be just watching the discussion from the side this time :-) sw _______________________________________________ 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".
