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

Nicolas George george at nsup.org
Sun Jan 13 17:57:33 EET 2019

James Almer (12019-01-13):
> And kill the project by reducing development speed to crawl? Unreviewed

That is indeed the problem.

> 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.

You keep saying that, but you waltz around the problem. So let me state
it plainly:

If there is somebody (1) who repeatedly pushes patches without review
(because it is new code or because it is over code that they maintain by
self-appointment), (2) whose patches frequently cause regressions, some
of them detected by Coverity, (3) when they get a review and it requires
more work from them, are rude and unhelpful, and possibly ignore the
comments, (4) as a result from that rudeness receive even less reviews,
and (5) all this seems to be motivated by sponsorship, can you tell what
course of action you propose?


  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/20190113/8fd4bcd0/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list