[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] avfilter: fix data type for {Tile, Untile}Context's image size

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 06:49:04AM +0200, Marvin Scholz (ePirat) wrote:
> 
> > On 24. Jul 2024, at 00:10, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:17:43PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >>> On 7/19/2024 12:31 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> >>> Internal/private filter structures/API changes does not need be mentioned
> >>> in that file, isn't that fact obvious even for average Joe?
> >> 
> >> There's no reason to be condescending or aggressive over something so
> >> irrelevant. Is it so hard to just state the APIChanges entry is not needed?
> > 
> > "so irrelevant" sounds condescending to me too
> > 
> > either way, i support pointing out if something sounds rude/condescending/aggressive
> > (theres nothing bad in pointing that out, first step is always being aware
> > one said something that others find offensive)
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> I'm writing this representing the CC. This is not the only case you were
> >> pointlessly aggressive to someone in the past week or so. Consider it a
> >> warning before further action is taken.
> > 
> > This part i do not agree with.
> > First, i dont think we actually had a majority for a warning, I see 4 of 5
> > members of the CC replying but only 2 talking about a warning.
> > 
> 
> 
> What a joke is the CC if this is not warning-worthy…

The question is not if its "warning-worthy", the question is what action
creates the best FFmpeg. And also an enviroment we are all happy to work in.
Some people do not at all like being warned publically, some people do not
at all like having the CC "Breathe into their neck".
Some people dont like offensive language

What we need is a middle way between all this that makes as many people
happy and contributing as possible


> 
> And if you do not point it out in public, it looks like to everyone else such behavior is tolerated, to everyone else.

I think i clearly stated that i do want people to point out offensive
sounding things immedeatly in realtime when they happen to the people involved.
This has been done in several instances and IIRC it almost always if not always helped
with noone being offended. The problem begins with it is done in a threatening
tone or "from above".
Having authority is ok, emphasizing that authority is not IMHO


> 
> > Also (as i said previously) Politely pointing out to people when they write
> > offensive things is a good thing, it has been effective in channeling
> > discussions into a positive and friendlier direction,
> > especially when done in real time. (You did the previously several times
> > successfully)
> > 
> > Adding a "threat" in the form of a warning maybe works for some people in
> > some cases. But in others its more like slapping an already angry guy in the face.
> > You get slapped harder back then have to punch and get punched back and then
> > things spiral downward. And whetaver the exact outcome its a bad outcome
> > 
> 
> Having less toxic people in the community is a bad outcome? Ok then we have different definitions of bad.

Bringing a Team that considers some members toxic together and having noone considered
to be toxic is the real goal. Loosing a major volunteer contributor is already
not a good outcome.

If some people can absolutely not work together, yes then its better for them to
part ways. And if they still work both on the same codebase we should ensure that
their work can still be combined while each side has their own git tree where
they can maintain their code without avoidable interference from others.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-- Albert Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20240724/196813ee/attachment.sig>