[FFmpeg-devel] possible farewell; dev policy clarification

Michael Niedermayer michael at niedermayer.cc
Fri Oct 30 15:24:38 CET 2015

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:42:30PM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 10/30/15, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> > e) I have no personal interest in asm optimizations (to address a
> > suggestion on IRC). I do appreciate the hard work there, it just does
> > not appeal to me for reasons that I can answer privately. I am
> > interested in security aspects, algorithmic improvements, bug fixes,
> > and clean up (in that order). Currently I am trying to get rid of a
> > lot of the last aspect to create a foundation for myself to work on
> > other things. Part of that transition is already under way - see e.g
> > av_gcd patches as an algorithmic improvement.
> >
> > Please feel free to add things, send private email, or public
> > questions so that we can come to a better understanding.
> I'm just going to tell you that you should ask before pushing something
> that was not explicitly approved or even worse, was rejected.

There where alot of patches, and i mean alot of good patches
but its sometimes difficult to keep track of who said what in patch
review. I do think i checked and approved the log* patches that where
pushed yesterday.

more generally
Its possible for review comments to be misunderstood, or even
forgotten, both by other reviewers, the author or commiter,
I do not think that this leads to any technical problem in practice
as people notice very quickly when their comments have not been taken
care of the way they expected
What i like to ask people is to, if that happens not to assume mallice
because that is neither likely nor would it be productive to assume
If something gets ignored it is IMO basically always some
misunderstanding or mistake.

Now maybe there are also some simple and small technical changes that
could reduce confusion.
One would maybe be to add a "Approved-by:" or "Reviewed-by:" line to
commit messages when the reviewer differs from the commiter and
This way one can see at a first glance who approved/reviewed each
patch. I dont think this needs to be always added but maybe in cases
where there is already some confusion it
could maybe avoid further misuderstandings

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

DNS cache poisoning attacks, popular search engine, Google internet authority
dont be evil, please
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20151030/05d0a695/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list