On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, 15:57 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org wrote: > James Almer (12019-01-13): > > And kill the project by reducing development speed to crawl? Unreviewed > > That is indeed the problem. > > > and unchallenged patches by long time devs with commit rights can and > > will still be pushed after enough time and ping attempts have been made. > > Expecting anything else will take ffmpeg through the same road libav > > found itself in. > > Bad commits that were ignored but noticed after the fact have been > > reverted in the past. They will inevitably crash under the weight of its > > own crappiness. That will not change. > > > > Rewrite this patch, make it palatable, and then the rest of the project > > will consider it. Stop wasting your and everyone's time by insisting on > > a patch everyone NAKed. > > You keep saying that, but you waltz around the problem. So let me state > it plainly: > > If there is somebody (1) who repeatedly pushes patches without review > (because it is new code or because it is over code that they maintain by > self-appointment), (2) whose patches frequently cause regressions, some > of them detected by Coverity, (3) when they get a review and it requires > more work from them, are rude and unhelpful, and possibly ignore the > comments, (4) as a result from that rudeness receive even less reviews, > and (5) all this seems to be motivated by sponsorship, can you tell what > course of action you propose? >
How would declaring the sponsorship help in this regard,when the real issue is your points 1 to 4? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
