[FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Michael Niedermayer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:54 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:04:45PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:39:29 -0600 Marth64 <marth64 at proxyid.net>
> wrote:
> > > Hello, in the context of a GA member,
> > >
> > > I think there is general interest in modernizing technical
> tooling
> > > specifically regarding ML/patch workflow vs. integrated git
> solution.
> > > Both have their merits. I think what we have today is optimized
> for
> > > some but cumbersome for many. Like shopping for a drill, it is
> good to
> > > step back from time to time and ensure we have the right tools.
> > >
> > > I think the problem statement of productivity being impacted from
> > > outgrowing the current tooling is different from who is hosting
> it.
> > >
> > > These are some options I noticed interest in (in no particular
> order):
> > > - Forgejo
> > > - GitLab
> > > - Mailing List/Patch Workflow (current solution)
> >
> > Since our last discussion at VDD, I have come to prefer Forgejo
> over GitLab
> > and would be in favor of hosting an instance on ffmpeg.org.
> >
> 
> > What are the current barriers to doing this. Michael, since you
> said that you
> > are in favor iff the community agrees with it, should we start a GA
> vote on
> > the matter?
> 
> I would instead of a secret GA vote, maybe wait a few days for
> discussion
> to settle down and then just ask people on the ML about (yes vs no)
> (strong vs weak)
> and a short paragraph about a switch to Forgejo

Isn't this intrinsically biased in the first place?
Asking on the mailing list about who wants to move away from it?

And then telling those who do not like or regularly use the mailing list: "Of sorry, you missed the opportunity of voicing your opinion on moving away from the ML because you didn't read the ML!"

During the time when I didn't follow the ML, I still received and got attention of the voting e-mails. I don't think that an informal call on the ML is suitable for getting a representative picture, but an e-mail with a call for voting will reach out to everybody with an equal chance of getting attention.

sw