[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] libbs2b audio filter

[Uoti Urpala]

On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 06:40 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 18:23 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>  >
> >> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 
> >>> What would be the alternative? I do not believe trying to reach
> >>> consensus via discussion is realistic. And losing all the
> >>> improvements because of developers who resist change would not be
> >>> exactly positive either. "Doing the same development, just
> >>> everybody cooperating" is not an option. Either attempts to
> >>> improve things are dropped, or things are changed against the
> >>> will of some developers.
> >> 
> >> The trouble is, both moving to git and the changes you're making
> >> are apparently at least somewhat controversial. Tying each one to
> >> the other makes them both less likely to be accepted, not more.
> > 
> > The best MPlayer development repository already is in git. It cannot
> > be easily ported to svn.
> 
> Then what you should be doing is to push for switching the mainline to
> git, *without* simultaneously insisting that the changes you have made
> in your personal fork be accepted as part of the mainline. (Once that is

Which would neither resolve development questions nor be likely to help
reach any consensus. I think this whole "one change at a time" idea of
yours is a red herring and there's no point discussing it further.

> MPlayer has not moved to git. You may have created a personal fork which
> is tracked that way, but unless there's a lot which I've missed which
> wasn't discussed on these mailing lists, that does not affect MPlayer
> per se.

What's visibly offered to end users has not moved, but a significant
portion of development has moved. And yes you won't have a full picture
from the mailing list posts.


> Setting up a competing fork, and then pretending that it *isn't*
> competing

Where did you invent that "pretending" part from? I explicitly said
there is no consensus. I mentioned the possibility of some developers
maintaining a separate tree in svn (which you partially quoted below). I
even said it's unlikely that would be "competitive". So just what
"pretending" are you talking about?

>  and that development will eventually transition over to it
> simply because it is inherently superior, seems to me to be arrogant to
> the point of being offensive - and it seems to me that that is exactly
> what you have done here.

Most users and remaining svn development will transition over to it
because it'll be superior. By "inherently" you're insinuating that I'd
believe it will be superior just because I started it. It will be
superior because of better code, a significant amount of which _already
exists_.