[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:59:05AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:31:25AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> >> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:17:15AM +0100, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> >> >> >>> [...]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Since I've already tested that and shown it to work I see
> >> >> >>> little reason to do that for all files when it seems
> >> >> >>> unlikely to get included in FFmpeg anyway and I have no
> >> >> >>> interest in maintaining a fork.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> FYI, I might be reconsidering my interest in it.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > if theres anything i can do to help you, just say it!
> >> >> > i really would like to finally fix the mov demuxer so it conforms to
> >> >> > the API in respect to codec_tag
> >> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >> All you will do is breaking stream copy.
> >> >
> >> > that doesnt work currently anyway, object ids are lost ...
> >> > and dont fear i plan to change the muxer as well, i just wont do it
> >> > as long as you are maintainer and actively opposing such a change
> >> 
> >> Does this mean that you intend to kick Baptiste out by force (not that
> >> I know how you'd do that), or are you assuming you'll simply annoy him
> >> enough that he finally leaves on his own accord?  Neither strikes me
> >> as very friendly.
> >
> > neither
> > I just meant that if baptiste steps back as mov maintainer or leaves or
> > changes his mind about codec_tag then i will fix the codec_tag issue.
> > If he does neither of the 3 ill keep refering people who complain to him.
> >
> > And about the "not that I know how you'd do that". How am i supposed to
> > interpret this? Do you think that the fact that you volunteered
> > as root gives you the power to decide who should have svn write access
> > to the ffmpeg project?
> > As you are just repeatly saying such things but so far have not misused
> > that power ill interpret this as your short temper and ignore it. But
> > be ashured should you misuse your power, ffmpeg would find a differnt
> > server very quickly.
> 
> Let's just get one thing straight: FFmpeg != you.

I did not claim this, but ffmpeg is even less you. Still you threaten
to make decissions about ffmpegs developers based on what you think
is best or what you think is a consensus amongth the active developers.
Why is it that you think that your oppinion about a consensus amongth
the active developers is better than the ffmpeg maintainers oppionion
about a consensus amongth the active developers?
After all ive not acted against the oppinon of the majority ever
still you repeatly emphasize that you wont listen to me.


> 
> FFmpeg, not existing as a legal/formal entity, is best defined by the
> active developers at any given time.  You are but one of these
> developers, and I dare say you are not essential to the project.  It
> is not for you to decide who is or is not part of FFmpeg, nor where
> FFmpeg is hosted.

I dare to say, if i move to a different server, ffmpeg with most
developers would follow.


> 
> Do not get me wrong; your contributions over the years have been of
> value.  That does not, however, give you exclusive rights to FFmpeg,
> and it certainly does not allow you to bully other developers.

I do not bully anyone.


> 
> If you feel that getting along with other people is too much of a
> burden for you, I will not, and cannot, stop you forking FFmpeg.  

I have no problem at all getting along with people, i do not even have
a problem getting along with you as developer. I have a serious problem
getting along with root at mphq and their decissions not matching democratic
majority, general consensus nor the maintainers oppinion sometimes.

Then again i must thank you for finally fixing SSL for the mailman
admin interface. Diego just told me it was you who did the work.


> Just
> do not expect many to follow you.  That said, I sincerely hope that it
> will not come to this.

Who except me reviews patches? If a fork did happen, the other side
would need someone to review patches or it would slowly turn into a
mess. Now if there were someone for that job, hey why isnt he doing it
already? It really would be a positive thing if more people would
review patches.


> 
> As for my powers as admin of mphq, I feel it is my responsibility not
> to take orders from any one person.  Not from you or from anyone else.
> To add or remove svn write access for someone, there should be a
> general agreement.  You having a quarrel with someone is not
> sufficient.

The thing is, i wouldnt ask you to remove someones svn access due to a
quarrel, i never did and never will. You must be dreaming if you think
otherwise.

And to give svn write access, well i think iam more qualified to make this
decission than for example you, diego, or even some democratic majority. The
reason is that i review the patches and thus know about the quality of the
code submitted and the authors ability to deal with the issues brought up
in the reviews.
Also you have never given anyone svn write access without me saying ok
nor refused to give anyone access when i said root should.
That is a strange contradiction from what you said.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct awnser.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080128/f028a650/attachment.pgp>