[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] pixdesc: deprecate AV_PIX_FMT_FLAG_PSEUDOPAL
nfxjfg at googlemail.com
Sat Mar 31 03:55:27 EEST 2018
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 01:55:52 +0200
Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> 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 ...
Maybe they're true at least to some extent? Have you ever thought about
that. Others complained too. Could also list Libav as argument.
I won't claim I'm 100% innocent (just like I don't claim you're 100%
evil). But there is definitely something wrong here with how you
> Whos patches are being blocked ?
> I assume by "some developers" you mean wm4 ? If so lets look at this
Oh, so you're singling me out as the evil one? That's of course a
direct attack against me. Also since bystanders will trust your word
more than mine (since you're universally known as "the" FFmpeg guy),
this is pretty a pretty serious attack against me.
Anyway, my patches have been blocked or bikeshedded in the past as well
by certain people (including yourself). Blocking/rejecting patches is
part of the normal development process. (What matters is _how_ it
happens and the social aspects around it.)
> 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."
I'd rather say: you blocked Tobias' initial patch, even though the patch
was completely fine. I was not even aware you objected to me blocking
the second version of the patch. You didn't reply to my arguments, or
reply at all.
> 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
Well, I also spend a lot of time going in circles with you, instead of
making progress. Like in this thread right now.
Can you explain how I "blocked" this? I explicitly encouraged you to
post concrete proposals (though you never did that), and my only gripe
with this was that the discussion was overly broad, with some danger
that you'd just make all avpriv functions public or so.
I'm actually not sure what you're complaining about wrt. to that
avpriv thread. This is how an overly broad discussion will go. So why
did you start one. What was your desired or expected outcome of this
thread? Everyone agrees and then does nothing, because there couldn't
really be any actionable result?
Actually, my patch makes it unnecessary to make one of those avpriv_
functions public, so you could say I contributed to this in a
> 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
Nicolas George? That guy who aggressively calls me a troll etc. and
even refuses to discuss anything directly with me?
> 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."
These changes are inherent, functional parts of the patch. It would
make little sense to split them out. It'd just obfuscate the
consequences of the change. I explained this, but you didn't really
respond to it and just repeated your original request.
The policy is NOT to split changes in nonsense ways just to reduce
commit sizes. Asking to split patches just for the hell of it is pretty
> And which patch do you belive iam blocking ? I was not intending of blocking any
You JUST complained that I wanted to push this patch as is.
So what is it:
a) my patch is not blocked, you're content with my reply that I don't
want to split out those changes we talked about to a separate commit
b) my patch is blocked until I send a new split version of the patch
c) something else which you haven't said yet or something equally vague
that you intend to complain about after I push the patch
I suspect it's actually c).
> 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.
It's pretty funny how you made a bunch of accusations against me in the
same mail here, and then you say to stop accusations.
There wasn't even an accusation in the commit message, but you somehow
interpreted it as direct against against you. And then you go here and
tell us to "calm down". Strange.
> 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?
Last time I wrote something to you privately on IRC you quoted it in
public on the mailing list. De-escalation, dude.
> I dont block patches generally ... If a patch is really bad many people will
You sometimes make quite unclear comments. Contributors don't know what
they're supposed to change in a patch or how. Others have occasionally
complained about this too.
In any case, I remember you aggressively blocked some things in the
past that required a few flames to get them unblocked.
On the other hand, I don't think I overly insistent in blocking patches
in general. When I end up in a flame, it's usually about me trying to
get my patches unblocked, not blocking other's work. (Remember those
damn side data merging changes? You blocked something until I made some
dumb change that got neutralized later anyway.)
I also remember how I wanted to delay the previous FFmpeg release to
get the hwaccel changes in (since mpv relies on them), but you
overruled me. Hilariously enough, now a new release is not happening
because of that shit show certain FFmpeg devs put on around those
component list patches. The contributor was literally begging for what
directions to take, but the project is unable to get anything done.
(Your role in this was to list the same arguments again and forgetting
or not finishing previous discussions about it.)
Last but not least I want to say your attempt to make a list of me
blocking things (see above) wasn't overly impressive.
So don't go around and claim I'm somehow holding things back. OK?
> object to it, it doesnt require me beyond maybe pointing to the issue to make
> sure others are aware of it ...
I probably will stop responding to such replies of yours. What the fuck
is this even?
More information about the ffmpeg-devel