Alexis - thanks a lot for the awesome response! Alexis Ballier wrote: > 'those who are right'
(Just a note that I am in no way invested in libav/ffmpeg, I merely speak from experience with another fork.) > However, as I said, maybe with an incorrect tone, I do not think > libav ignoring what happens in ffmpeg to be a pragmatic attitude > and believe it is mainly hurting applications trying to do their > best in supporting both, and users wanting the extra bugfixes or > featues from ffmpeg or the better review process from libav. Thanks for clarifying that! And I completely agree with you. Especially with forks it's important to keep compatibility a high priority in all projects. > The critic was directed towards this, which I believe should be > orthogonal to the reasons of the split. Yes, I agree also with that. Separate issues. > Finally, I would really love to see some will in reopening the > discussions, I guess it was some years ago, but maybe some more time still is good. I know no details, I only recognize the pattern. > > For a long time I idealized open source as being an ideal community, > > where communication always worked because everyone wanted it to. But > > that's unfortunately not at all the case. > > Yep, thanks for shaking me on this, it seems I should reread twice > before hitting send on an email since I fell in the same trap. It's easy. I did too. > Again, apologies if what I wrote has been taken personally, esp. to > those that tried their best to avoid the split. Not me - but if someone did feel bad about what you wrote I am very sure that they appreciate this! > > Quality is not a very helpful metric, because it means completely > > different things for different people. > > Quality here is: Everything that works with FFmpeg works with libav, > and vice-versa. Agree API compatibility is very important. > (and here, it seems the majority goes with libav) I for one am sadly uninformed and can not make a decision. :( > > Unless libav considers the API too broken to still be functional I > > don't see the point of differentiation. > > For distributors it does matter: if we start to have libav-only or > ffmpeg-only packages then users get the choice on what package to use, > not the implementation. Ah! Yes, but that is just a function of what happens upstream, and nothing that can ever really be a distribution's job to resolve. If anything, I think that incompatibilities showing through in the distribution can only help users become more informed about what happens upstream. It can be argued that they shouldn't have to be informed - but actually I don't mind that. It's good to be aware of what is going on even a few layers down. I know that this is not a very common attitude, but I think for Gentoo in particular it wouldn't be bad at all. > If there is a differentiation, then upstream decides what they > think is best and that's about it. It would not kill competition, > rather the contrary I believe. You're right that there would possibly be more activity in both projects if they were going fast in their own direction. On the other hand that fragments the user base (applications) and everyone is already invested in the common API, so I can understand that moving away from that also isn't very desirable. Anyway - good thoughts. Thanks again! //Peter
