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

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> 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.

Let's hope we never have to find out.

>> 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.

What you've been doing to Baptiste of late is getting quite close.
You're also constantly quibbling with Diego, over what I do not know.

>> 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.

Remember, your opinion constitutes neither democratic majority, nor
general consensus.

> 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.

Are you forgetting the Uoti debacle about a year ago?

> 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.

Patches are submitted to the public mailing list.  Anyone can judge
their quality.

> 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.

That we've agreed so far about who to give write access doesn't mean
that we always will.  I see no contradiction.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com