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

Tobias Rapp 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.

Best regards,

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list