[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

[wm4]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:23:20 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2017-04-24 13:39 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:46:38 +0200
> >> Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:  
> >> > 2017-04-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Aaron Levinson <alevinsn at aracnet.com>:  
> >> > > On 4/23/2017 7:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:  
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be
> >> > >> reviewed before being pushed?  
> >> > >
> >> > > I've asked about this on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel).  The overall
> >> > > consensus there, at least at the time I asked it, is there is an
> >> > > expectation that such changes have already been properly
> >> > > reviewed for libav, so they are likely to be okay for ffmpeg,
> >> > > and while some issues have crept into ffmpeg as a result
> >> > > of these merges, the merge process has gone smoothly
> >> > > overall.  
> >> >
> >> > This does not sound correct to me.  
> >>
> >> Are you joking?  
> 
> No, definitely not.

Well that's regrettable, because it appears you are misinformed. He is
certainly right about the consensus on IRC. He is also right that
patches get reviewed in Libav - probably more than in FFmpeg.

The merges are rather smooth as well, and we are all enjoying the
good results of the merges (including yourself). Usually there are no
major issues, although big intrusive changes sometimes cause some
regressions - which is normal for this type of change.

Regarding what Michael said: merges were never reviewed, and that's the
only reason why the FFmpeg project could keep up with Libav. You never
seemed to have an issue with merges when Michael did them, although
they were definitely not without problems.

These days, merges actually get more attention and reviewing, because
if there's something questionable or not simple, we get a "second
opinion", rather than adding a bunch of hacks to the merge commit,
like Michael tended to do.

> > What he meant was: it depends who does the merges, or rather,
> > what political faction (s)he is part of.
> >
> > Tsk, tsk.  
> 
> (Apart from the Coc, I don't remember if you agreed or not:)
> 
> Please try to comment on technical issues (or at least stay with
> the facts), the insults are less useful for this conversation.

Shouldn't you heed your own advice?

Like, seriously, shouldn't you, since you're the worst offender ever of
the things you just brought up here? Frankly you're on the level of an
aggressive troll, and always have been when it came to things related
to Libav.

I see that even in this thread, you tricked me again into typing out a
bunch of arguments with just one line of bullshit, while not bringing
up any arguments yourself. Oh well.