[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges
Carl Eugen Hoyos
ceffmpeg at gmail.com
Mon Apr 24 17:00:41 EEST 2017
2017-04-24 15:38 GMT+02:00 wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com>:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:23:20 +0200
> Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2017-04-24 13:39 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com>:
>> > Hi,
>> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:46:38 +0200
>> >> Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > 2017-04-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Aaron Levinson <alevinsn at aracnet.com>:
>> >> > > On 4/23/2017 7:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be
>> >> > >> reviewed before being pushed?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I've asked about this on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel). The overall
>> >> > > consensus there, at least at the time I asked it, is there is an
>> >> > > expectation that such changes have already been properly
>> >> > > reviewed for libav, so they are likely to be okay for ffmpeg,
>> >> > > and while some issues have crept into ffmpeg as a result
>> >> > > of these merges, the merge process has gone smoothly
>> >> > > overall.
>> >> >
>> >> > This does not sound correct to me.
>> >> Are you joking?
>> No, definitely not.
> Well that's regrettable, because it appears you are misinformed.
This is very unlikely.
You, otoh, were not around when some of the things you discuss
below happened, so it is extremely likely that you are misinformed.
> He is certainly right about the consensus on IRC.
> He is also right that patches get reviewed in Libav - probably more
> than in FFmpeg.
I always considered this one of the more insulting lies that were
> The merges are rather smooth as well,
I don't know what exactly you mean but I (strongly) disagree, I
believe the merges are not smooth at all.
> and we are all enjoying the good results of the merges
> (including yourself).
Given that I have written repeatedly on this mailing list that
I do not enjoy them (on the contrary), I wonder what you are
trying to say: I know you are not spreading lies on this mailing
list but perhaps you could elaborate a little?
> Usually there are no major issues, although big intrusive
> changes sometimes cause some regressions - which is
> normal for this type of change.
But if the regressions remain unfixed, it is a little surprising
to speak about "no major issues", don't you agree?
> Regarding what Michael said: merges were never reviewed,
> and that's the only reason why the FFmpeg project could
> keep up with Libav.
This isn't entirely correct (and some may consider the sentence
misleading, but I know you weren't around so you cannot know):
Because the avconv project controlled the api through one
distribution maintainer, most patches had to be merged.
(You probably don't know that some couldn't be merged
because it would have implied api/abi breaks which FFmpeg
always tried hard to avoid.)
> You never seemed to have an issue with merges when
> Michael did them,
How do you know this?
(I also ask because of the Coc that you so heavily requested
and I wonder what you are implying.)
> although they were definitely not without problems.
I was always strongly against the merges but we unfortunately
couldn't avoid them, see above.
> These days, merges actually get more attention and reviewing,
> because if there's something questionable or not simple, we
> get a "second opinion", rather than adding a bunch of hacks to
> the merge commit, like Michael tended to do.
These constant insults are so bad that I don't understand
why you are still around.
>> > What he meant was: it depends who does the merges, or rather,
>> > what political faction (s)he is part of.
>> > Tsk, tsk.
>> (Apart from the Coc, I don't remember if you agreed or not:)
>> Please try to comment on technical issues (or at least stay with
>> the facts), the insults are less useful for this conversation.
> Shouldn't you heed your own advice?
> Like, seriously, shouldn't you, since you're the worst offender ever
> of the things you just brought up here?
Reading your email, I find your constant accusations a little surprising.
> Frankly you're on the level of an aggressive troll, and always have
> been when it came to things related to Libav.
Since you seem to believe so strongly in the avconv project:
You do realize that it was mostly your wiki entry that convinced
the Debian and gentoo people to change projects (project
defaults) - why did you write it?
> I see that even in this thread, you tricked me again into typing out a
> bunch of arguments with just one line of bullshit, while not bringing
> up any arguments yourself. Oh well.
I mostly read insults above.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel