[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships.
t.rapp at noa-archive.com
Mon Jan 14 12:11:04 EET 2019
On 13.01.2019 16:24, 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.
Writing good code requires time. I don't see how being sponsored for
development should have a negative correlation (in general) to the time
invested on a specific topic/patch.
Patch review intensity should be based on the content of the patch
itself (e.g. complexity and long-term maintenance factor) and not based
on some disclosure requirement that has the potential to support prejudice.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel