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

Nicolas George george at nsup.org
Sun Jan 13 18:29:00 EET 2019

James Almer (12019-01-13):
> (1) is not an issue,

It is an issue because it makes the rest possible. After all, people
whose main motivation is code quality would want their code reviewed.

>			(2) and (3) are the issue, and depending on the
> developer's reaction at reviews and request for fixes, it should result
> in the removal of commit rights.

I was not ready to go that way, but since you put that on the tale, be
aware that I will hold you to it.

>								   Does
> the recent patch by Paul that prompted this abomination of a patch fit
> the above criteria?

If they happened in the future and not in the past (decisions should not
be retroactive), I would consider this:


(I notice that you did call him out on the second, and I appreciate it)
to count as strikes one and two.

> And (5) is completely irrelevant for the above. Bad code is bad code,
> and bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of the incentive behind it.

I am not very surprised to see technical types ignoring sociological
evidence, but it is saddening.


  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/b249049f/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list