[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avfilter: change ff_inlink_make_frame_writable() to take AVFrame* argument

Nicolas George george at nsup.org
Sun Jan 29 20:43:04 EET 2017


Le decadi 10 pluviôse, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> also we need a maintainer for the libavfilter core or a area covering
> avfilter.c and that person should then make a decission.

I have more or less acted as the de-facto maintainer of all that has to
do with scheduling in the lavfi framework. I can take over the rest of
the work (that would have required, for example, giving more attention
to the frame pool patches) if people want. I intended to propose when my
work of overhauling the design would have been finished.

I will not propose it officially myself right now, especially not as a
patch for the MAINTAINERS file, as it would look like escalating the
game of core-wars. But if somebody else pushes a corresponding patch I
will not object at all.

> But id like to ask everyone to NOT escalate this further, iam
> sure that nothing good would come out of that.

I fully agree.

wm4 has threatened to push a patch that I have explicitly and
unambiguously rejected. Furthermore, Muhammad, the original author of
this patch, has approved an alternate solution for fixing the same
issue.

Under these circumstances, pushing the patch would be a deliberate act
of escalation.

Note: I rejected the patch based on the main change it advertises, the
change in the function interface. The patch also contains changes making
the implementation simpler. These change are very worthy. If Muhammad
proposes them separately I will gladly approve and apply; and if not I
will eventually do it myself.

>							       as i do
> not want to take a side

When witnessing a bullying situation, not taking a side amounts to
siding with the bully. I will leave the readers decide for themselves if
and how that statement applies to the current situation.

As for myself, I do not wish to have any further interactions at all
with wm4. Starting now, as far as I am concerned, for all intents and
purposes, they and their messages no longer exist. I will reconsider my
position if I learn they can go for a year without badmouthing the
project or mocking or disparaging any of its contributors.

Of course, that means that all their proposals on areas of code for
which I am responsible are silently rejected. If somebody else sponsors
such a change, I will discuss it as if it were their own with all the
good-will that I am capable of.

If another member of the project considers this stance unacceptable, you
can take your responsibilities and kick me out.

For reference, I started the day in good spirits at the prospect of
having several unencumbered hours to work on framesync. Instead, I have
been so upset and disgusted by how this turned out that I was unable to
produce a single line of valuable code, be it for FFmpeg or my own
projects. And if you think that this is a paltry issue to be upset,
remember that the straw that breaks the camel's back does not need to be
heavy.

That is all I have to say on the matter. If necessary, details would
probably better be asked in private.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20170129/839b58d5/attachment.sig>


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list