On 10/27/2016 3:03 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote: > I'm not OK with this patch. My reasons are: > > * There are users relying on it > * We gain nothing by removing ffserver without a > replacement or alternate solution >
We've discussed the removal of ffserver and even /announced/ it on news section of the website. It would be really nice if for once this project gets its shit together and stops looking like a joke from an outsider PoV. > One solution I would support is a transition made by > moving all applications to a separate repo hosted within > the same infra. With a commitment not break our own apps. > The server will be fixed to work using public API in the > process. I can work on this with whoever wants to help. Starting an ffserver replacement outside the ffmpeg tree was suggested as a potential todo if people were willing to write it, but it didn't affect the removal decision, something that should have happened today, as scheduled, on the release that was just made, but that ultimately didn't happen because who knows why. Might as well write a news entry telling people to stop trusting news entries. > > Bests, > > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
