[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Refactor Developer Docs, update dev list section (v2)

[Timothy Gu]

Hi all,

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:32 AM Jim DeLaHunt <from.ffmpeg-dev at jdlh.com>
wrote:
> 1. In doc/developer.texi, eliminate the single chapter,
> and promote each section underneath to chapter, and
> each subsection to section. Thus content and relative
> structure remains the same, but the overall structure is
> simpler.  Anchors within the page remain the same.

I have manually applied this part of the patch, which is noncontroversial
and a
strict improvement to what we have right now.

> 2. In doc/developer.texi, add a new section about
> ffmpeg-devel, based on existing text from ffmpeg-cvslog
> section regarding discussion of patches and of
> development issues.

The wording in
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/221199.html sounds
good
to me.

> 3. In doc/developer.texi, rewrite the ffmpeg-cvslog section
> to match the current usage of ffmpeg-cvslog. Some developers
> choose to follow this list, but it is not mandatory.

> +from all sources. Subscribing to this list is not mandatory, if
> +all you want to do is submit a patch here and there.

I would remove the "if" part, leaving only the "not mandatory" message.
Over my
tenure as FFmpeg developer I have never subscribed to -cvslog, since there
are
other ways of following FFmpeg development these days (subscribing to the
FFmpeg repo on GitHub, for example). I am glad to see this sentiment echoed
by
Ronald and Rostislav.

However, other than this technicality, I am in favor of the spirit of this
part
of the patch.

----

Carl,

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:03 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you believe that it is unclear that there is a difference between an
> occasional contributor (who most likely would not read -devel nor
> -cvslog) and a committer (who is supposed to read -cvslog), then
> maybe a patch is useful.
>
> I believe the difference could be considered common sense.

Thank you for expressing your opinion regarding this. However, I cannot say
I
agree with this evaluation. As I read this paragraph as it currently stands,
the tone makes it sound like subscription is mandatory ("we expect you"). I
believe the proposed modification is a significant improvement over the
existing text.

Additionally, from what I'm reading, it seems as if you believe subscribing
to
-cvslog is even more important than subscribing to -devel, which is false,
plain and simple.

Without further opinions from you, I will be applying this part of the
patch in
due time, by virtue of being the maintainer of Documentation.

Thanks to you all,

Timothy