[FFmpeg-devel] Donations and what happens with them

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Wednesday 2011-01-26 19:40:18 +0100, Reimar D?ffinger encoded:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:35:47PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:28:14PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:18:48PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:08:16PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > > > > Anyway, we don't want to kick you or anyone else away. We just want to
> > > > > > do away with some old habits of development and replace them with - we
> > > > > > think - better ones.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'd still like to know what everyone thinks are those better ones are.
> > > > > Because what I have seen happening is:
> > > > > 
> > > > > - You said you'd require ok by two developers, essentially doubling review
> > > > >   effort for all external patches.
> > > > 
> > > > Where did you get this idea?
> > > 
> > > From this:
> > > 
> > > - All changes shall be reviewed and approved by at least one other
> > >   developer
> > > 
> > > The alternative is that a rule for external contributions was never
> > > mentioned at all...
> > 
> > OK, so this unclear, let me rephrase it:
> > 
> > - All changes (by long-time as well as new developers) are to be sent
> >   as patches to ffmpeg-devel.  Once they have been reviewed by at least
> >   one other developer knowledgeable in the area touched by the patch
> >   they are pulled into the central repository.
> > 
> > Does that clarify the original intention?
> 
> Yes, at the cost of confusing the meaning of the term "developer" though.
> And not considering that I consider quite some parts of FFmpeg to have
> 0 developers that are really knowledgeable.
> So not that much of a win overall.

I already ask, but I'll ask again here: assuming that the new
"maintainers" are in fact "committers", which is the role of the
"maintainers" (as listed in the file MAINTAINERS)?

And if they are still maintainers, does this mean that all the changes
that pass through review need to be approved by them? This makes sense
as the famous "announcement" declares that the maintainership didn't
change.

And so what's the role of the "committers team"? I suppose it is safe
to assume that they can commit patches which are not controversial
(typos, cosmetics, trivial fixes which doesn't require a deep
knowledge of the code and which doesn't change its interface), *or*
that belong to their maintainership areas, *and* which are OK'ed by
another "knowledgeable" developer (does she need to be a maintainer in
the area?).

Also how the "committers team" members are choosen, and by whom?

A lot of questions which need an answer, I hope we'll get back to a
"constitutional state" when it is clear which is the policy and how to
apply it.

Note: please, if you want to reply don't do it here but in the
"announcement" thread.
-- 
FFmpeg = Fabulous Faithless Marvellous Philosofic Enhancing Genius