[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avfilter: change ff_inlink_make_frame_writable() to take AVFrame* argument

[wm4]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:43:04 +0100
Nicolas George <george at nsup.org> wrote:

> Le decadi 10 pluviôse, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > also we need a maintainer for the libavfilter core or a area covering
> > avfilter.c and that person should then make a decission.  
> 
> I have more or less acted as the de-facto maintainer of all that has to
> do with scheduling in the lavfi framework. I can take over the rest of
> the work (that would have required, for example, giving more attention
> to the frame pool patches) if people want. I intended to propose when my
> work of overhauling the design would have been finished.
> 
> I will not propose it officially myself right now, especially not as a
> patch for the MAINTAINERS file, as it would look like escalating the
> game of core-wars. But if somebody else pushes a corresponding patch I
> will not object at all.
> 
> > But id like to ask everyone to NOT escalate this further, iam
> > sure that nothing good would come out of that.  
> 
> I fully agree.
> 
> wm4 has threatened to push a patch that I have explicitly and
> unambiguously rejected. Furthermore, Muhammad, the original author of
> this patch, has approved an alternate solution for fixing the same
> issue.
> 
> Under these circumstances, pushing the patch would be a deliberate act
> of escalation.

Well, in the quoted paragraph below you write that you will probably
push the discussed patch yourself. So for that reason and for the sake
of deescalation, I won't push it. I'll probably bring the patch up in a
few weeks or so to avoid that the patch gets lost. (Because it's a good
change, even if somewhat minor and not really worth all this stupid
drama.)

> Note: I rejected the patch based on the main change it advertises, the
> change in the function interface. The patch also contains changes making
> the implementation simpler. These change are very worthy. If Muhammad
> proposes them separately I will gladly approve and apply; and if not I
> will eventually do it myself.

So you agree with the patch, except you didn't say that, and instead
publicly rejected it? There is no logic in this.

I can only assume that you want ff_inlink_make_frame_writable to retain
its current signature. I'd argue against that, but I'm not getting the
chance to.

> >							       as i do
> > not want to take a side  
> 
> When witnessing a bullying situation, not taking a side amounts to
> siding with the bully. I will leave the readers decide for themselves if
> and how that statement applies to the current situation.

You are the "bully" - I've witnessed it countless of times.

> As for myself, I do not wish to have any further interactions at all
> with wm4. Starting now, as far as I am concerned, for all intents and
> purposes, they and their messages no longer exist. I will reconsider my
> position if I learn they can go for a year without badmouthing the
> project or mocking or disparaging any of its contributors.

It doesn't work this way. This is an open source project. If you wish
for me not to exist, you can either murder me (please don't), or start
working on another project. If you want to stay, I promise I will try
to avoid being insulting (if you're nice to me as well).

If you push more patches while ignoring my reviews (which you already
did once), then there's a problem. As you've put it so nicely, pushing
patches under those circumstances would be deliberate acts of
escalation.

> Of course, that means that all their proposals on areas of code for
> which I am responsible are silently rejected. If somebody else sponsors
> such a change, I will discuss it as if it were their own with all the
> good-will that I am capable of.

I know you want to portray yourself as victim, but I'm sorry, with
such clear-cut words under thinly veiled hostility and a barely working
pretense of trying to appear reasonable, it just doesn't work.

With that stance, you becoming the maintainer of anything in FFmpeg is
clearly unacceptable. Hell, even your reviews could not be trusted at
all, since you just reject patches because you're playing some shitty
troll game, instead of staying technical.

"Silent rejection" doesn't exist. It doesn't work that way - you can't
make others to further your little war with me, just so you can pretend
I don't exist.

> If another member of the project considers this stance unacceptable, you
> can take your responsibilities and kick me out.

Well, one already did (see the other reply to this mail).

I'm also a project member and find this unacceptable, but I know you
won't count me for some reason.

> For reference, I started the day in good spirits at the prospect of
> having several unencumbered hours to work on framesync. Instead, I have
> been so upset and disgusted by how this turned out that I was unable to
> produce a single line of valuable code, be it for FFmpeg or my own
> projects. And if you think that this is a paltry issue to be upset,
> remember that the straw that breaks the camel's back does not need to be
> heavy.

My day is ruined as well. I can't help to notice how accusatory your
is against me. It's as if I did something really bad, that stops your
productivity (and, like the implication could be, robbed the FFmpeg
project of your valuable changes). But you also say "how this turned
out", which implies you're not happy with the other's reactions, and
how blame goes to them as well.

I would have tried to avoid engaging you, but you have aggressively
tried to prevent this patch from being pushed. What did I do? I argued
that Muhammad's patch was a good one. I gave technical reasons as to
why. You remained stubborn and used some of your passive-aggressive
thinly veiled insults. I admit I trolled back. But hey, at least I had
some actual arguments. Whenever it was your time to respond to actual
technical issues, you ignored them, and decided to claim that something
about my post was "rude" - despite doing that yourself (like saying
things like "wm4's bad advice").

I haven't rejected your alternative patch to fix this either. I only
argued that it'd be nice to push Muhammad Faiz's first patch (which,
by the way, you think is (at least partially) a "worthy" change).

But here you go. Just after someone asked for deescalation, you are
writing an email how you will ignore all of my future mails, and
explicitly stated above that you will reject future changes from me.

You feel sick? You're doing this to yourself.

> That is all I have to say on the matter. If necessary, details would
> probably better be asked in private.
> 
> Regards,
>