[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] pixdesc: deprecate AV_PIX_FMT_FLAG_PSEUDOPAL

Michael Niedermayer michael at niedermayer.cc
Sat Mar 31 02:55:52 EEST 2018

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 01:31:35PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Why you and some other 'old' developers have urge to block every single patch
> that comes from some developers?

Thats a pretty serious accusation, you should not throw this around
lightly unless its true.

Also i would generally prefer not to talk about people in relation to
who did what as its alienating and this is bad for us as a team.
But being accused of something i did not do, how could i defend myself
without refering to what was actually said and by whom. And these
accusations keep comming up ...

Whos patches are being blocked ?
I assume by "some developers" you mean wm4 ? If so lets look at this

wm4 blocked tobias av log patch yesterday (Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] avutil/log: add av_log_set_opts function)
    "I'd like to block it, because I don't see it as a good thing that more
     fftools specific stuff is leaking into the generic libs. Sorry."
and in the "[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] avpriv cleanup" thread 3 days before 
    the debate went in circles until i gave up as it just got too much
    effort for the small gain of the change i wanted to do.
    Not technically blocked no
and in this thread here with the roles flipped around his comment was
    "I don't intend to make such strange changes. If you don't have anything
     actual to contribute, I will push this patch on monday."
He also made similar comments to nicolas. but lets stay with this here

The "strange changes" here are a request to split out renaming an identifer
that is required by our development policy, and everyone else splits their
renamings out too and i do not remember any other developer questioning that
such changes improve the git log readability

you can check https://ffmpeg.org/developer.html
"Cosmetic changes should be kept in separate patches."

And which patch do you belive iam blocking ? I was not intending of blocking any

Its really odd, if i look at just the last few days, who blocked patches
and who got accused of it. It just makes no sense. There is not much overlap
between who blocked patches and who got accused of blocking patches.

Either way these hostilities we have here are not good, please calm down, iam
not blocking any patches. If some other developer, wm4, nicolas or whoever 
does, iam sure he has a reason for it, even if someone disagrees. 
The best for such a case would be
to calmly and respectfully discuss. Escalation will likely not achive anything
except Escalation.

Also lets stop accusing people, of things. This just leads to a back and forth
that is harmfull to the team. 
If you think iam doing something bad or wrong, talk with me about it please
theres private mail there is IRC. Hasnt it always been a misunderstanding of
some form in the past?
I dont block patches generally ... If a patch is really bad many people will
object to it, it doesnt require me beyond maybe pointing to the issue to make
sure others are aware of it ...


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not
or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and
the brevity of human life -- Protagoras
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20180331/23bc8b88/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list