On 11/29/16, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/28/2016 5:52 PM, Clement Boesch wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 07:15:28PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: >>> Deadline: 2016-12-06 00:00 UTC. >>> >>> I propose, and put to the discussion, that the decision to drop ffserver >>> is revoked, conditioned to the fixing of the technical issues that lead >>> to it. >>> >> >>> In other words, if the technical problems that require dropping ffserver >>> are resolved at the time it is about to be dropped, then it must not be >>> and the patch is not applied. >> >> Do we agree that the requirements are the following: >> >> - ZERO internal API usage >> - at least partial FATE coverage >> >> ? >> >> What's the due date already? Next release? > > There are more important things to establish than just that. > > Seeing Nicolas is apparently very invested in ffserver, can we expect him to > maintain it, improve and extend it if it were to remain in the tree? Or is > he > just fighting this fight to not remove code for the sake of not removing > code, > and will forget about it and expect someone else to deal with it if it > starts > bitrotting again? > > And furthermore, how can we even trust anything that's agreed out of this, > if > the very existence of this vote derives from people being incapable of > honoring > previous agreements? Will people once again come out of the woodwork at the > very > last second, start flipping tables and decreeing on a whim that everything > should > be declared invalid, much like Nicolas is doing right now? > > This entire situation is simply embarrassing, no matter how you look at it > or how > you try to rationalize it.
I'm against keeping ffserver as such in FFmpeg repo. It can be readded later when it is mature and properly implemented. I vote No for this attempt to revoke previous decisions. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
