[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] restore git.videolan to download page

[Jason Garrett-Glaser]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 17:32:19 (CET), compn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:07:06 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 02:58:10PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:29:34AM -0500, compn wrote:
>>>> > if this looks alright to everyone i'll commit...
>>>> >
>>>> > --- download ? ? ?(revision 535)
>>>> > +++ download ? ? ?(working copy)
>>>> > @@ -33,6 +33,22 @@
>>>> >
>>>> > +<h2>FFmpeg Git (original tree) </h2>
>>>> > +<p>
>>>> > +This git repository contains MPlayer filters and is synched up to the newer tree.
>>>>
>>>> Is it? ?Will it remain synchronized?
>>>
>>>yes unless we find a compromise iam planing to indefinitly support at least
>>>pulling all changes from the hijaker fork (minus ones which are really bad but
>>>i trust you all that really bad things will be very rare or absent)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why are you mentioning the filters?
>>>> Because they are a distinctive feature? ?This looks like a fragile way to
>>>> characterize the differences between trees.
>>>
>>>I agree
>>>a few days ago i thought about something like
>>>"mean, ugly, dirty, featurepacked and all features and bugfixes of ffmpeg.org
>>> reviewed twice, once by the new maintainers and once before merging."
>>>(thats actually what i did so far and wasnt that hard, and the description
>>> can easily be changed if i run out of time to review the changes then we
>>> can say blindly synced)
>>>
>>>But i feared you would refuse the patch and didnt want to start unneeded
>>>mud spraying so i thought id think a bit more about it. But it really looks
>>>best to me ATM
>>
>> are you ok with this then?
>>
>> i just want to put the repo on the download page without much
>> trouble. so please no grandstanding.
>>
>> -compn
>> Index: download
>> ===================================================================
>> --- download ?(revision 535)
>> +++ download ?(working copy)
>> @@ -33,6 +33,23 @@
>> ?<a href="http://git.ffmpeg.org/?p=ffmpeg.git">browse it online</a>.
>> ?</p>
>>
>> +<h2>FFmpeg Git (original tree) </h2>
>> +<p>
>> +mean, ugly, dirty, featurepacked and all features and bugfixes of git.ffmpeg.org
>> +reviewed twice, once by the new maintainers and once before merging.
>> +</p>
>
> I'd prefer if we could avoid judgemental wording here.

I agree, it isn't reasonable to force our flamewars on users...

Jason