[FFmpeg-devel] To be or not to be working with libav (was: [PATCHv3] On2 VP7 decoder)

Ivan Kalvachev ikalvachev at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 00:23:06 CEST 2014

On 4/6/14, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 4/1/14, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Well I firmly remember that at VDD 2013 the Libav team tried to reach
>>> out the ffmpeg one, but the latter neglected any interaction.
>> Would you please expand this part more. What have you negotiated and
>> what haven't been done?
> As far as I remember the Libav devs just invited the ffmpeg ones to
> their meeting to try and establish some common ground (like I'm doing
> now myself) and share ideas and future development.
> The reply that had been reported was that they didn't want to have
> anything to do with us.

So basically there was nothing concrete. Just a social gathering.

>> For now I'll try to be constructive:
> Thanks ^^

I said "for now" :E

>> 1. Do you have a commit right to git and could you find a(nother)
>> committer who is willing to put higher priority to review and apply
>> patches sent from FFmpeg to Libav.
> Only one review is needed, of course that depends on the complexity of
> the patch and area of expertise of the reviewer.
> I don't think I can guarantee higher priority to anyone as reviews are
> carried out in free time and noone is employed in doing so.

You didn't answer my question: Do you have commit access?

I thought that only patches from developers need one more review,
assuming the other developer have already approved his own patch.
Well, I guess the rule could have been relaxed because of the low
number of active reviewers.

>> Some people have already pointed specific patches that have been sent
>> to libav and haven't been reviewed.
> That's a sad but true point, sometimes reviews have stalled patches,
> but pinging the patch usually results in getting it through.
> Overall the review process has prevented more bugs than stalled
> patches, so this is something positive so far.

We are well aware how review process works. In the old FFmpeg the
review process was insanely hard with multiple tries/passes. It was
quite burdensome for the developers and it was one of the main reasons
for people disliking Michael Ni. and wanting a change.

After the fork FFmpeg relaxed that model drastically and it does seem
to work much better. Just like it does for a numerous different

Anyway, from your words I see that you are literally not taking any
personal responsibility.
You are not promising that you are going to review FFmpeg patches and
that you will commit reviewed and approved patches.

Are you going to at least start nagging your libav peers to review the
patches from FFmpeg? Why don't you try to do that with the patches
that were pointed above.

Do something.

>> 2. Can you remove the ban on FFmpeg developers from the libav maillist
>> and irc channels?
>> Most importantly, Michael's.
> AFAIK there is no ban on anyone, besides Michael. I am not sure why
> that's so important to you, but such decision could certainly not be
> taken by a person alone.
> Of course if the flow of communication, collaboration and respect
> between the two projects increased, I believe that there could be room
> for bringing this topic up for discussion.

There is nothing to discuss. Either Libav removes all bans or there is
no point in wasting time with empty talks.

First check all emails that Michael have sent to libav* maillists and
see for yourself that there have never been any reason to ban him.

Then ask your peers for the reason this ban is still standing and
request the ban to be removed. And better get their answers in
writing. (Because if they refuse, I want to read why.)

If you want to establish a common ground, then you have to first show
at least a sign of good faith.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list