[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:22:42AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
[...]
> >> If you feel that getting along with other people is too much of a
> >> burden for you, I will not, and cannot, stop you forking FFmpeg.  
> >
> > I have no problem at all getting along with people, i do not even have
> > a problem getting along with you as developer. I have a serious problem
> > getting along with root at mphq and their decissions not matching democratic
> > majority, general consensus nor the maintainers oppinion sometimes.
> 
> Remember, your opinion constitutes neither democratic majority, nor
> general consensus.

neither does yours, which is why iam complaining

If you seriously wanted a democratically ruled root there would have to
be some simple verifyable voting procudeure.
As you arent suggesting that, i assume you want power outside what a
democratic vote or the maintainer wants but hidden behind a "there
was consensus on IRC" as if everyone would be on IRC at all times.


> 
> > Then again i must thank you for finally fixing SSL for the mailman
> > admin interface. Diego just told me it was you who did the work.
> >
> >> Just
> >> do not expect many to follow you.  That said, I sincerely hope that it
> >> will not come to this.
> >
> > Who except me reviews patches? If a fork did happen, the other side
> > would need someone to review patches or it would slowly turn into a
> > mess. Now if there were someone for that job, hey why isnt he doing it
> > already? It really would be a positive thing if more people would
> > review patches.
> >
> >> 
> >> As for my powers as admin of mphq, I feel it is my responsibility not
> >> to take orders from any one person.  Not from you or from anyone else.
> >> To add or remove svn write access for someone, there should be a
> >> general agreement.  You having a quarrel with someone is not
> >> sufficient.
> >
> > The thing is, i wouldnt ask you to remove someones svn access due to a
> > quarrel, i never did and never will. You must be dreaming if you think
> > otherwise.
> 
> Are you forgetting the Uoti debacle about a year ago?

no, uoti violated the mplayer policy, threatened with commit wars, and
ignored an unanimous request from the developers to revert a change.
Also there was a vote and a clear majority to close his account if he
did not within a time limit, he didnt. Root choose to ignore this.

I preempted something similar from happening by asking root to close uotis
ffmpeg svn account, which root did.

It was not due to a quarrel between me and uoti.


> 
> > And to give svn write access, well i think iam more qualified to make this
> > decission than for example you, diego, or even some democratic majority. The
> > reason is that i review the patches and thus know about the quality of the
> > code submitted and the authors ability to deal with the issues brought up
> > in the reviews.
> 
> Patches are submitted to the public mailing list.  Anyone can judge
> their quality.

Yes, but mere ability to is not enough, people would actually have to
review the patches before voting.


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

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in
ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080128/f80a7e68/attachment.pgp>