[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships.

James Almer jamrial at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 17:19:51 EET 2019

On 1/13/2019 12:06 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> James Almer (12019-01-13):
>> If no one challenges, then either no one looked at it, or everyone that
>> looked at it was fine with it. Where is the issue then?
> If nobody looked, how can we know there is no obvious security issue?

How is that related to sponsored work? If a patch was ignored, then the
extra line in the commit message would have been ignored as much as the
actual code.

>> You're looking for a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
> Tell that to the people who have been insulted for raising valid
> objections on sponsored work.
>> Sponsored work has been disclosed before without any kind of guidelines.
> Not all of it.

And that is not going to change no matter how many lines with absurd and
unenforceable intrusive requirements you try to add to a file nobody
ever reads.

>> If you want something people will not NAK on sight, write one where you
>> require to double check who the copyright belongs to in case of
>> sponsorship to prevent wrong commit authorship, and to *suggest* stating
>> sponsorship status if the copyright ultimately belongs to the developer.
>> Drop any mention about remuneration disclosure if it was not public to
>> begin with, and then it can be discussed.
> Re-read the rationale in the proposed patch: copyright is only one of
> them.

And none of them change anything of what i said. You will not magically
generate new or better reviews for patches that otherwise would have not
gotten any.

The patch is unacceptable as is. Rewrite it into something closer to
what i mentioned above that encourages developers instead of disturb,
disgust and scare them away, and you'll be met with more amenability
from other developers in the project.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list