Le lauantaina 9. elokuuta 2025, 21.39.47 Itä-Euroopan kesäaika Nicolas George a écrit : > If your mail client does not let you do that easily… well, it proves my > point: a good mail client makes all the difference in productivity and > comfort to interact with the project.
I don't know nor care if my mail client can or cannot do that. I use it for actual eletronic mail, that is to say exchanging messages between humans, as well as to receiving automated notifications from a variety of services. SMTP and MIME are not intended for patch review. In case you did not notice "text/plain" is for, well, plain text - not for butchering a diff patch with review comments. And Judging by how poorly email works at synchronising calendars, I can't imagine the disaster that it would be if we tried to synchronise code review state with it. > > Also replying to multiple patches in a single mail makes everyone > > else's life miserable for tracking the review. > > Then we delete all but the first patch and reply to it, the all but the > second patch and reply to it, and… And we ask the person who submitted > to next time have the courtesy to send the patches in separate mail. That's just useless busy work. The whole point is that it's much easier and more robust to review on an ad-hoc web interface. Thanks for making my point. > > But more importantly, email has all the fundamental problems that I > > already raised several times in previous threads. > > Sure, but we are in the process of establishing that these “fundamental” > problems are only the consequence of using mediocre mail clients. If email was a suitable way to do code reviews, people would not have invented Patchwork to supplement what email lacks. As noted several times previously, even a carefully tweaked mail client can only address parts of the problem. Accordingly Linux and FFmpeg would not have tried to take it into use. As much as I dislike Patchwork, I at least appreciate the motivation and effort behind it. Lastly, FFmpeg's sibling project QEMU would not have switched over the Gitlab. > > It simply can't compete with something that's designed for code review > > and actually tracks and organises relevant metadata. > > What a naïve thing to say. That's just an ad hominem attack and insult against me, not a sound argument. > I must say, I like my elitism about skills much better Skills in tweaking mail clients and manually tracking patch review status? Sorry that's more advocacy of busy work than elitist gate-keeping (and I am *not* endorsing gate-keeping). I think FFmpeg maintainers have more important things to do with their limited time and motivation, like actually reviewing FFmpeg code. > than your elitism about material possessions. That's literal defamation. I am obviously not responsible for the non-trivial hardware requirements of FFmpeg builds. And yet, I am keenly aware that they exist, as the maintainer of the RISC-V FATE runners. How low must someone fall when their cognitive dissonance prevents them from conceding the obvious. > So, unless you come up with a trick to invoke Vim from the web monster > with minimal manipulations, you have to admit that switching to it would > make at least a few of us significantly less proficient. At least in theory, it should be possible to extend Forgejo to enable code reviews in Vim. Maybe someone has even already done it. It is not possible with email at all and never will be, since email simply can't convey and track the necessary info accurately and reliably, so Forgejo at least is no worse than email. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont Tapiolan uusi kaupunki, Uudenmaan entinen Suomen tasavalta _______________________________________________ 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".
