[FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Soft Works
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 5:14 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
> 
> 
> 
> > -----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.

Just read December and feel like an idiot. I had no idea what has happened. My interest is better tooling, but now I come to wonder whether this is really just about tooling or possibly other motivations in play. It might make sense to wait until things have settled a bit and people can talk normally to each other again? Not that the transition will end up as a fork.. 

sw