[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] New FFmpeg maintainership

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Wednesday 2011-01-19 18:42:13 +0200, Ivan Kalvachev encoded:
> On 1/19/11, Jason Garrett-Glaser <jason at x264.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Thilo Borgmann
> > <thilo.borgmann at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Am 19.01.11 01:58, schrieb Diego Biurrun:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:39:24PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >>>> On date Tuesday 2011-01-18 19:53:41 +0100, Attila Kinali encoded:
> >>>>> We, the undersigned, announce that as of today FFmpeg maintainership
> >>>>> has been assumed by a new team.  Our aim is to facilitate the
> >>>>> development of exciting new features in a timely manner while keeping
> >>>>> high quality standards and above all to provide a fair, productive
> >>>>> environment for developers and contributors.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can understand some of the reasons for this change, and I can even
> >>>> agree with them. But it should have been better to announce and
> >>>> discuss publically on this list.
> >>>>
> >>>> This hasn't happened, and this sounds higly unrespectful for all the
> >>>> FFmpeg developers not involved in the change.
> >>>
> >>> There is a time for words and there is a time for action.
> >>
> >> I'm maintainer of some small part of FFmpeg. You, who have "assumed"
> >> maintainership have done nothing else than assuming that I do support your
> >> actions and in the same move have taken my maintainership from me?
> >
> > I don't quite understand this sentiment.  As far as I can tell,
> > maintainerships haven't changed.  MAINTAINERS is exactly the same as
> > before.  I wouldn't have supported this if it meant stripping people
> > of their maintainerships.
> >
> > The only thing that has changed is the *committers*, and *committer*
> > is not a reward, it's a burden: it means you have to be a patchmonkey
> > for all the people who get to do actual coding work.
> 
> The announcement is quite unclear about this subject.
> 
> First, the committers do name themselves "maintainers team", so it is
> natural to assume that they are going to maintain ffmpeg from now on.
> 
> Second, the announcement says that commit must be approved by 2
> developers. However that category doesn't exist anymore. There are
> committers and contributors. In the past developer==committer. So
> using the old definition, patch must be approved by 2 committers.
> 
> If developer category also includes the maintainers, then could any 2
> maintainers approve any patch? And could the committers veto it?
> And could maintainer veto patch even if it is approved by 2 committers?
> 
> Also, it is quite possible that there is some developer who doesn't
> have its name listed in maintainers. Would developer status still
> apply for such person and how will people obtain developer status in
> future?

I think there is the need to clarify which are the new rules, and
which is the new meaning of "maintainer" and "committer". What if a
"maintainer" wants to commit something and the "committers" don't
agree? What if committers don't agree amongst themselves? How is
resolved the conflict in these cases?

I suppose the "maintainers team" should be rather considered a sort of
"committers team" and has the "final decision" and control on what can
be committed or not, right?

Many of the other discussions don't make sense if you don't clarify
this before.

> There are many question and uncertain things that are left hanging
> around. Maybe some of them are left uncertain for the special purpose
> of gaining more supporters until the new rulers are accepted for
> granted.
-- 
FFmpeg = Faithless and Fantastic Merciless Peaceful Elected Geisha