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

James Almer jamrial at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 17:40:02 EET 2019

On 1/13/2019 12:24 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> 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?

And kill the project by reducing development speed to crawl? Unreviewed
and unchallenged patches by long time devs with commit rights can and
will still be pushed after enough time and ping attempts have been made.
Expecting anything else will take ffmpeg through the same road libav
found itself in.
Bad commits that were ignored but noticed after the fact have been
reverted in the past. They will inevitably crash under the weight of its
own crappiness. That will not change.

Rewrite this patch, make it palatable, and then the rest of the project
will consider it. Stop wasting your and everyone's time by insisting on
a patch everyone NAKed.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list