From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3008548825 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 18:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD76668D367; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 20:20:51 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D4D68D1AC for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 20:20:45 +0200 (EET) Authentication-Results: mail0.khirnov.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=khirnov.net header.i=@khirnov.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=DPO5H/n2; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1511240DA9 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:20:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id yRwOfhZiaViG for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:20:43 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1708280443; bh=u9/VIm/mc5lLjxPvsY2F/YVj0hvGEU3CuLzkIq/OaQk=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=DPO5H/n2E55QXXhYyUscxwg7XAcpuJWEb1ELFws02ZaiKIosOMXN7XOziqA+TdrPk GwloJ2iHsJk0SAxR912oeoUReg05DF0/5Va8RvwpAo5mzw0S0sVQ8g+CLQLAUnzDfB uuXCbyxSv6ds5IlIv1AfKXOBaPzKwR5Byg429m17EQGHCRn3ZjC1+kcxgf7yxt9fKA nCw9MF3Ua37hZzgHUEv5JNnCjT8PKB/mJmD5BwpwNcq2Z+fApuj43jAi8KeUNjWfl4 lhI2p/xESgfKyql8UNk0EG+1g3uA0jB9B4X4di4jp4McuVWQSFU4tnfWvKN4+REFI7 GUHmKoastF7aQ== Received: from lain.khirnov.net (lain.khirnov.net [IPv6:2001:67c:1138:4306::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "lain.khirnov.net", Issuer "smtp.khirnov.net SMTP CA" (verified OK)) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59332240177 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:20:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 38F8D1601B9; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:20:43 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <20240218004314.GM6420@pb2> References: <594a2da4-0693-483e-82ab-2924b16d8dbb@gyani.pro> <170799405543.32390.14003661310804711658@lain.khirnov.net> <0c3c8b9b-927e-470d-9272-67536279ba15@gyani.pro> <170801340414.21676.5189683358387742257@lain.khirnov.net> <170807419472.21676.17214572018161936192@lain.khirnov.net> <6a46373c-3a6b-4490-9ae9-46d2a72a3e5a@gyani.pro> <170817255879.21676.17805665941049439864@lain.khirnov.net> <170819974399.21676.13449065399578350362@lain.khirnov.net> <20240218004314.GM6420@pb2> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: <170828044320.21676.10142270056126999587@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-18 01:43:14) > "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC" > does IMHO not preclude commenting on a patch. > > For a disagreement we need 2 parties. For example one party who > wants a patch in and one who blocks the patch. or 2 parties where both > block the other. > > Being a party of a disagreement would not make anyones opinon invalid. Anything that goes to TC is a disagreement. Anyone who expressed an opinion on the patch then is 'a party to the disagreement'. > But I think it is reasonable that parties of a disagreement cannot be > the judge of the disagreement. Why not? This is one of those truthy-sounding statements that does not actually hold up to scrutiny. TC members are not supposed to be impartial judges, because there is no body of law for us to interpret. TC members are elected for their opinions. And I see no good reason why those opinions should suddenly become invalid just because they've been expressed before. And again, interpreting this rule in this way means that TC members are incentivized not to review patches. Given that TC members are also often among the most active contributors, is that really what you want? -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".