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

Kieran O Leary kieran.o.leary at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 18:09:17 EET 2019

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, 15:57 Nicolas George <george at nsup.org wrote:

> 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?

How would declaring the sponsorship help in this regard,when the real issue
is your points 1 to 4?

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list