Re: [FFmpeg-devel] What is FFmpeg and what should it be

From: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] What is FFmpeg and what should it be
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:22:49 +0200
Message-ID: <20230808152249.GY7802@pb2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3241696.aeNJFYEL58@basile.remlab.net>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3019 bytes --]

Hi

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 06:39:10PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le sunnuntaina 6. elokuuta 2023, 22.53.23 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > > > > Did you ask people to do that?
> > > > 
> > > > yes, multiple times.
> > > > Also normally patch objections come with a path forward, that was not
> > > > the case here.
> > > 
> > > Not necessarily, sometimes preventing a bad idea from happening is a
> > > positive thing in itself, and no path forward is needed.
> > 
> > That is missing that people suggest a path forward but
> > with too few details to easily walk that path.
> 
> Uh, I hate to state the patently obvious, but if "no path forward is needed", 
> then there should logically be _no_ "details to walk [a] path". Conversely, if 
> avradio does not belong in FFmpeg, as Kieran, Tomas and others have been 
> arguing, then there is no path forward to be given on FFmpeg-devel.
> 
> 
> And besides I don't think it's even fair to state that "too few details" were 
> given. People did suggest making this a new separate project properly isolated 
> from FFmpeg internals, and/or joining efforts with existing OSS SDR projects 
> rather than FFmpeg. Some specific projects have even been cited.
> 
> As far as FFmpeg(-devel) is concerned, I can't think how it could/should 
> reasonably get any more specific than that.

The saying goes, one cannot win an Argument on the Internet.
So, iam not trying to, but

IIRC, a while ago you said iam obliged to work on FFmpeg. Thats
simply not the case.

Its not an obligation but rather my choice that i like to work on
something the end user will enjoy. And the end user, in fact
more than 500 end users liked SDR in FFmpeg.
My original plan was to spend 1-2 weeks working on SDR, now
probably about 2 months passed with me spending a bit working on
SDR here and there.

I also am not obliged to do what other developers want me to do. But i have
been in this community for a very long time and have my highest respect
from the Developers in this community, even if at times we disagreed
they are all great people, and some are my friends.
And working toward a consensus everyone is happy with is
something i want whenever there is a disagreement.
On IRC what people said, and what JB said here, is that people are ok
with a SDR module in FFmpeg under some conditions.
It is these conditions that i do not fully understand, and that i
tried to understand better.

You and vittorio here seem to suggest that instead there are no
possible conditions and no path forward. Thus a fork would have to happen.
Now iam quite confident, that, thats not what people ask for.
We had a fork and i dont think we want to have a new one.

Again, i want a consensus everyone is happy with so I keep asking
what people suggest exactly.

Thanks

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

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. -- Lao Tsu

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
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".