[FFmpeg-devel] Donations and what happens with them

[compn]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:22:41 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:16:23PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:12:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:48:29PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:40:29PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
>> > > > On 01/24/2011 08:33 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 05:07:42PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
>> > > > >> On 01/24/2011 04:45 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> But then one of the developers on my side told me he has been offered money
>> > > > >>> to work for / join the new maintainers.
>> > > > >>> From where is that money?
>> > > > >>> from our foundation it seems
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'm not aware such events. Most likely not true. But how about we fund
>> > > > >> you to keep working on your fork? I'm sure there are areas where we can
>> > > > >> find an agreement for this to happen.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Thats an odd offer in this thread, but what amount are we talking about?
>> > > > 
>> > > > Suggest a project to the foundation board and an amount that you think
>> > > > is reasonable for the task.
>> > > 
>> > > I would suggest refactoring the motion estimation code as a project,
>> > > it is old code that nobody dares touch.
>> > 
>> > Ive tried to clean it up already for free and i failed ...
>> > The problem was that some changes that where needed to continue simply made
>> > the code alot slower (yes its about gcc failing to optimize the code equally
>> > well)
>> > so after a few alternatives ive tried ive given up with a "fuck gcc"
>> 
>> motion_est.c is used for encoding only.  If a cleaned-up version turns
>> out to be slower, this is something that can be tolerated up to a point.
>> 
>> > maybe gcc has improved but given the recent coup ill leave cleanup
>> > of it to you, i dont feel like working for the new maintainers currently
>> 
>> Don't be silly, this is not about me vs. you and it's not to be done for
>> me or a group of people, it's to be done for FFmpeg.  I'm not asking for
>> a favor here either.  I'm suggesting a paid task that I would vote for
>> as foundation board member if you were inclined to take it on.
>
>My FFmpeg is happy with its motion_est.c.
>And i dont see why the community would prefer a ffmpeg binary that is slower
>and has a better formated source file that no user will ever see anyway.
>The developers migh care abot cleaner API and faster compile but your
>suggestion was oddly worded then

i prefer faster ffmpeg. motion_est is good for testing memory and
compiler anyways. why yes, using 600mb of ram does show that maybe the
compiler is a memhog. thanks for trying to split it tho. if it cant be
done without losing speed, it cant be done.

>And i prefer to be silly and continue my civil disobedience against an
>illegitimate takeover of ffmpeg
>if you wanted to fork you could have and still can choose a new name.
>And note i dont say i want you to fork, but if you choose to do it, then do it
>properly please!
>Ive seen people on IRC feel offended when i used the term "leader",
>the offense is because your side has not switched to a different name.
>I never meant to assert that iam the leader of the new maintainers.
>id commit seppuku if i where that. And actually at this point maybe you should
>consider that too? Id vote in the foundation to fund your burial

ah , so this is another example of an out-of-context quote / bad joke.

-compn