Hendrik Leppkes (12019-01-11): > Its everyones right to keep their finances private. Would I be forced > to disclose my hourly wages and then determine how long I worked on a > patch, just because I did it during my day job? Thats not going to > happen. > > To take a line from your post: > Are you against privacy?
I grant you these were cheap theatricals. But to answer your question seriously: I am against absolute unconditional privacy, yes. Some things deserve privacy, some things do not; I personally believe that economic matters rather fall in the second category. In the particular instance you are evoking, the commit message could just say "developed as part my regular job at $company", I consider that enough disclosure for the purpose. And I wonder why you would want to keep that much hidden. > Patches should generally be considered on their own merit. That is true. And patches should be reviewed and discussed until they are of top quality. You know as well as me that it is not what is happening: there are too many patches and too little time available from competent developers; as a result, some code of mediocre quality have been pushed, and some committers have explicitly stated they would bypass technical objections to their patches. And now it appears that was the result of sponsorships... Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
