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

Nicolas George george at nsup.org
Sun Jan 13 17:24:40 EET 2019

James Almer (12019-01-13):
> 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.

Without sponsoring, most reasons for developing code are positively
correlated with code quality. Not perfectly, but at least some.

Sponsorship, on the other hand, is a motivation for developing code that
has little to do with code quality.

For that reason, sponsored code should be examined much more carefully.

Of course, if your stance were that no new code should go in without
proper review, then I would support you totally, and possibly drop this
proposal. Is it?


  Nicolas George
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20190113/b9f347f9/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list