[MPlayer-cvslog] r26411 - trunk/libmpdemux/demuxer.c

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 5/30/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:58:34AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:04:14AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 05:51:58PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 04:27:50PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Reimar Döffinger
>> > > > > <Reimar.Doeffinger at stud.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>> > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > > > >> diego           1038     504     1542
>> > > > > >> reimar           690     246      936
>> > > > > >> voroshil         312       8      320
>> > > > > >> nico             212      43      255
>> > > > > >> benjamin         144      32      176
>> > > > > >> ulion            153      13      166
>> > > > > >> eugeni           106      56      162
>> > > > > >> uoti              99      20      119
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Reimar, looking at these numbers, I'd say that you are de-facto
>> > > > > project leader.
>> > > > > Diego is not coder and none of his commits changes the way MPlayer
>> > > > > works. He is doing a lot of refactoring and cosmetics.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Reimar, please take the Project Leader role and resolve the
>> > > > > situation
>> > > > > in the way you like it.
>> > > > 
>> > > > yes, seconded, and my emphasis is on _resolve_. Not the "playing
>> > > > deaf" diego
>> > > 
>> > > I will write up a statement/explanation before the weekend draws to a
>> > > close.  I have no time right now because I am meeting friends in a few
>> > > minutes.
>> > 
>> > Sorry, this took much longer than promised.  I was very busy these past
>> > weeks and days and was away for a week without internet in between.
>> > Admittedly, I also always get carried away by maintenance duties and
>> > random issues.  Probably also due to the fact that my motivation to
>> > flame is at an all-time low.  Coding feels so much more fulfilling...
>> > 
>> > I'm also very much torn between the desire to write this statement as
>> > promised and the fear (or rather certainty) that this will stir up
>> > flaming again and cause grief and time loss.
>> 
>> It seems you view any form of disscussion or critique as flame and bad.
>
> Wrong.  I don't know where you get that idea, you have seen me discuss
> many many times (constructively) over the years.  But discussions should
> be done with a clear head.
>
>> I think this is the wrong way to attack things. Critique means that
>> there is a disagreement and these should be discussed and resolved,
>> staying silent (or asking others to stay silent) does IMO achive the
>> opposite. That is it angers everyone and does not resolve anything.
>
> The emphasis needs to be put on the word *resolve*, yes.  I'm not asking
> anybody to stay silent.  I'm asking for people to step back and look at
> the issues without their emotions clouding their judgement.  I believe
> that the flaming is blowing things out of proportion and everybody is
> getting worked up over pretty much nothing.
>
>> > Anyway, here comes my position statement:
>> > 
>> > Everybody should step back for a minute, calm down, and think about what
>> > it really is that we were debating:
>> 
>> We are discussing a solution to the problem that a large number of the
>> developers
>> are quite incompatible with uotis provocative, arogant and egoistic way.
>> The solution you as admin choose is to step back and let people kill each
>> other. While complaining about the amount of flaming. Its quite ironic
>
> Wrong.  I have worked to *resolve* the problem, not fight it out, by
> talking to the parties where the conflict originated, namely Reimar and
> Uoti.
>
> I'm not particularly happy about how things played out in the end, nor
> would I claim not to have made mistakes.  However, I was terminally
> frustrated and had basically decided to pack it all in.  Had I decided
> to join the discussion, I would have kicked and screamed like everybody
> else when a clear head was needed.  So I decided to work on the original
> causes of the problem.
>
> Has it occurred to you that you might be overreacting in this case?
>
>> > Uoti committed a bunch of cosmetic cleanups of different types together
>> > and labeled his commit as "indent".  That was not good and I dislike bad
>> > commit messages more than the next guy, but it was not catastrophic.
>> > Plus, it was neither malicious, nor intentional.  Uoti honestly did not
>> > expect this to be controversial.
>> > 
>> > Then Reimar gets upset and heavy flaming, heavy even measured by MPlayer
>> > standards, erupts.  I speak with Reimar, I speak with Uoti, Reimar
>> > eventually calms down again.  As suggested by me, Uoti speaks with
>> > Reimar, they decide to find a way to work better together with less
>> > friction.
>> > 
>> > Everything should be fine and dandy again, should it not?  No, wait, of
>> > course flaming has not subsided, but reached epic proportions instead.
>> > The tides of the discussion go ever higher and none of the participants
>> > is helping it in any way.  On the contrary, all sides are stubborn or
>> > prone to flames or both and generally have a number of character traits
>> > not conducive to resolving conflicts.
>> > 
>> > But what has really happened?  Whatever you may think of the policy, it
>> > does not contain a paragraph that forbids committing different types of
>> > cosmetic changes together.
>> 
>> It contains parts about not mixing cosmetics and functional changes it
>> also
>> contains parts about not commiting to code maintained by others and
>> something
>> about sending patches.
>
> None of this applies in this particular case.
>
>> > I am not trying to lament here, just stating facts.  Leadership requires
>> > standing up and not following loud voices in the direction of least
>> > resistance.  This is such a situation.
>> 
>> Leadership requires to solve problems and prevent the project from
>> breaking
>> apart. It also requires to create an environment in which developers feel
>> comfortable to work in.
>
> Precisely.  The developers are the people doing the actual work on the
> project.  They need to feel comfortable.
>
>> > We have 5 people (Michael, Ivan, Alban, Aurelien, Roberto) voting for
>> > Uoti's removal and 4 people speaking up against (Uoti, Eugeni, Benjamin,
>> > Diego).  This is a far cry from a clear situation, especially given that
>> > each of the latter 4 is more active than all of the 5 combined.
>> 
>> Its true for the current activity but if i look at all commits of all
>> times i much rather loose all of the later 4 than a single one of the
>> first 5.
>
> I think your anger is clouding your judgement.  You should try to
> reevaluate the contributions of all nine people mentioned above.
>
> I very much respect all the developers listed above, I know most of them
> personally, like them and the feeling is mutual.  Nonetheless nowadays
> MPlayer is being developed by a new generation of people.  That does not
> mean that the contributions of those people are insubstantial or that
> not appreciated.  But you could go further back in history and find
> people that have done even more, like Nick and Arpi, yet are not
> steering this project any longer.
>
>> Also you speak about this as a throw him out vs. keep him in the project.
>> If one looks at it like that it surely is better to keep him, but its not
>> so simple. its that >50% of the people do not get along with him and
>> loosing 1 vs. loosing 50% of the developers is something quite different
>
> You assume that the majority (whatever that may be) shares your opinion.
> The majority is silent.  The longer I look at the situation, the less I
> feel confident to predict what these other people think.
>
> It's also not as simple as you think.  I surely do not want to work on a
> project where valuable contributors get thrown out like this.  Of
> course, you have made it pretty clear above that you do not value my
> contributions.  If everybody else agrees with this then I do indeed not
> see much point in continuing to waste my time here.
>
>> > This projects has many problems, but renegade commits are not one of
>> > them.  Lack of manpower is much more serious
>> 
>> Well frankly the lack of manpower is caused by the hostile environment
>> IMHO
>
> I am not denying this, but the question is what constitutes a hostile
> environment.  I'll quote Denes Balatoni, one of the innocent bystanders
> on the fringe of this project:
>
>   I have not partcipated in the discussion before, but now that you
>   ask, I will say that IMO it is not wise to complain about some
>   ancient and not neccesserily consensual "cvs rules" by older inactive
>   MPlayer developers, just to get rid of a newer - but one of the last
>   active - MPlayer developer. I think a more forgiving and constructive
>   environment would better serve the interests of the project.
>
> Note that many many outsiders consider the environment around FFmpeg
> very hostile.  Of course, FFmpeg can get away with it, because there is
> no alternative to it and it holds a monopoly on its "market".  So people
> are willing to put up with more hardship or simply are forced to work
> with FFmpeg one way or the other because they cannot switch to an
> alternative.
>
> MPlayer cannot afford that luxury.  I want the constant flaming to stop.
> People should concentrate on coding and reviewing instead of shouting at
> each other.
>
>> id like to point out how you complained about iive changing the
>> spelling of xvid. Which honestly is totally irrelevant compared to
>> changes to the code.
>
> I did not complain about Ivan changing the spelling.  I complained about
> Ivan reverting my commit without prior notice.  If he had reverted just
> the files he maintains - fine.  But he chose to revert the files I
> maintain as well.  He did it on purpose.  This is obviously a
> provocation.
>
> How come that you don't have an issue with such behavior?
>
> I find it very irritating that Ivan can get away with anything without
> attracting your wrath while others get attacked over much less.  This
> behavior is incongruent, especially in light of the actual contributions
> that Ivan and other people do.
>
>> > We are not Linux kernel and we are not a wealthy company.  We have very
>> > limited manpower and we cannot just go out and hire the people we want
>> > and need.  We have to be content with whomever we've got aboard and
>> > with whatever skills and personality they have got.
>> > 
>> > Let's face it: competent developers do not joing MPlayer every month.
>> > On the contrary, they are few and far between; a resource not to be
>> > squandered.  If they happen to be difficult to work with (and we have
>> > many of those aboard), we have to find ways to make ends meet.
>> 
>> The problem is that you did not yet find a way to make ends meet.
>> Convincing me or reimar on the phone does not solve the problem.
>> Make uoti less arrogant and egoistic and we would be a long way
>> toward a solution. But people are what they are, noone can change
>> them ...
>
> I found a way to make Reimar and Uoti resolve their differences.
> I found a way to avoid a return parentheses issues in the future.
> I have split the offending commits.
>
> This is much more than nothing.  I have tried my best (however little
> that may be) to be _constructive_ and not destructive.  Who else can
> claim that?
>
> In the medium term I think we will have to look at distributed revision
> control.  This way, people will not have as many possibilities to step
> on each other's toes.  I'm starting to familiarize myself with Mercurial
> and git.  Unfortunately I do not have much time for this ATM.
>
> In the future, a way to avoid fights over reindent commits would be
> reindenting all of MPlayer.  Problem solved once and for all.

I was really hoping that Michael wise words could reach you.
Unfortunately his words went into deaf ears.

I'll try another approach. It have worked in ancient times
maybe it could work today.
I'll tell you a parable.

(btw the plural of sheep is sheep, not-sheeps)

---
Once upon a time some man got a flock and became shepherd.
But a wolf in sheep's clothing got into the shepherds flock.

Most of the sheep started complaining from the wolf, but the shepherd didn't listen. He calmed them down and did what he can to make them comfortable.
But the wolf been a wolf, started eating one sheep every week and the flock started getting smaller. Some of the sheep that didn't got eaten started running away.
Some of the remaining sheep complained again to the shepherd, but he told them "I can not get rid of that sheep, it is healthy and big, it eats a lot, it is one of my best in the flock. My flock is small and I need every sheep."

When one day neighborhood shepherd who had big and healthy flock, come to the first one and told him "I know your sheep, some of them have been in my flock too. Listen to them. Remove that sheep because it is wolf in disguise and wastes your flock". The first shepherd replied "You are wrong. Your flock is healthy and big, but mine is small and sheep are skinny. That sheep is from my flock and it is big and healthy. I don't see why I should get rid of it. It may be wolf, but I think the others just misunderstand it. I'll talk to them and I will comfort them and everything will be fine."
"If I had to get rid of some sheep, it would be that old skinny one that is always stalking me and bleating at me and eating my robe. It makes other sheep unrest and causes me a lot of worries. I won't be surprised if it is the wolf."

Time passed until nothing was left from the flock, even the wolf went somewhere. Then the shepherd said "I did nothing wrong. I always did the best for my flock. I cleaned every sheep every day. But the grass wasn't green enough, most of the sheep were skinny and lazy and were bleating instead of eating. And it was so hard to get new sheep in my flock. It wasn't my fault.".

Then the man went to other shepherds to help them with their flocks.
---

These who have ears will hear.
These who have eyes will see.
These who have mind will understand.
Pity on these who don't have anything.