[FFmpeg-devel] [DECISION] Revoke the decision of dropping ffserver

Carl Eugen Hoyos ceffmpeg at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 22:41:14 EET 2016

2016-11-29 21:11 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
> On 11/29/2016 5:04 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2016-11-29 20:38 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>> Seeing Nicolas is apparently very invested in ffserver, can we expect him to
>>> maintain it, improve and extend it if it were to remain in the tree?
>> How is this related?
>> For which part of FFmpeg can we "expect" anybody to maintain it?
> He's trying to override an announced project decision of removing a feature.

We - obviously - announced it to find somebody who would fix the issues
raised. If they are fixed, the "decision" is of course void, and we don't
have to vote about it.
(We could vote to overturn our decision although there are still

> If he has no interest in making sure said feature doesn't go back to the
> state that prompted its removal, then he's simply trying to force the project
> to keep code someone else will have to deal with.
> It would make much more sense in that case if the actual person interested and
> willing to deal with the code to be behind these decision revoking attempts.
>>> Or is he just fighting this fight to not remove code for the sake of
>>> not removing code, and will forget about it and expect someone
>>> else to deal with it if it starts bitrotting again?
>> This is a violation of our code-of-conduct or do I misunderstand you?
> How so? If he's not going to maintain the code he's campaigning to keep in
> place, then he obviously expects someone else will, right? How is stating
> that a violation of the CoC?

I am not a native speaker but this is not how I read your accusation.
"is he just fighting the fight to not remove code for the sake of not
removing code" sounds to me as if you are not assuming good faith.

Carl Eugen

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list