[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavfi/buffersink: deprecate non-AVOption init.

[James Almer]

On 9/28/2017 11:29 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> [ Replying in private so as not to escalate the troll. ]

No. I'm CCing to the list as this is a public discussion.

> 
> Le septidi 7 vendémiaire, an CCXXVI, James Almer a écrit :
>> That's not how things are done and you know it. You do not simply ignore
>> another developer's email just because you don't like them. And
> 
> I could answer just: watch me. But I like to be more constructive.

I say it again, you don't ignore other developer's emails. That "watch
me do whatever i want" attitude is what nobody likes or wants in any
kind of OSS project, and is absolutely unacceptable.

> 
>> *especially* not when it's a veto to an API change.
> 
> There are no vetos in this project, only arguments. The message you
> pointed me is devoid of it.

If there are developers against a patch, unless they're outnumbered then
it works as a veto. Then of course we also have the voting system to
make it official if things are too tied or heated up.

> 
>> This is a project handled by several people and it doesn't care about
>> your personal grudges. So please, ask him to elaborate why he's against
>> this patch, and don't push it until both parts are satisfied or other
>> people intervene to argue in favor or one side of the discussion or the
>> other.
> 
> If they had anything to elaborate, they could have done, and they still
> can. I wrote that I will push *if there are no objections*. There are
> none, the message you pointed is not an objection, it is a tantrum.

You didn't explain why you want the patch applied either. The commit
message is empty. And since now wm4 explained why he's against, it's
your turn to both explain why you're in favor and to address his argument.

Don't escalate this thing any further. We don't need more drama or
flamewars here. Nothing good ever comes from that. You two argue why
you're in favor or against this patch, and don't commit anything until
that's solved.