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 9422449299 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 23:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD1668CC5B; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 01:04:57 +0200 (EET) Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (relay7-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.200]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F24C6807D3 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2024 01:04:50 +0200 (EET) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAE2120003 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 23:04:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=niedermayer.cc; s=gm1; t=1707260690; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ymh8ZQwn0meMfiDBwFmib62uW48/F9dkdU070lF4Kas=; b=YCVUO0AZ3OtV2yqXjIcKZlUhrZ/A3AOiabzpuQEbHn1Ly+wkE3htZZFD/ejMvcByPckDlB F/Srt6/3CzC2l20QOKWlLON2uy01rvYAomH52N0tH7EkUyFTqjqexP2eMnvEUUa8V/zOQf 77yl7nlNXhZDkEZvFaomycZvd6zNtSezDfovdb4EeKRrDGGSLtNLdSf2inZvbOSEFfUEJW oQ2O/HEDehat/t77KyEyQ4EPB1CHhbvkZ2XX+vNrLMNdteepkcijv0mJcEZeEpCfSdZYxt 4NvTKxMK8YmseKuAVuCg8mx8EIwIGjNqoJtv8MbFcH31W8FAVqe3bKh6RuAjFA== Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 00:04:49 +0100 From: Michael Niedermayer To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: <20240206230449.GE6420@pb2> References: <20240206020642.GW6420@pb2> <20240206151457.GX6420@pb2> <20240206170443.GE61936@haasn.xyz> <20240206181715.GB6420@pb2> <20240206212304.GD6420@pb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-GND-Sasl: michael@niedermayer.cc Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] STF SoWs 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1122098907612875710==" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --===============1122098907612875710== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nyNhCFi5SeQhhT5p" Content-Disposition: inline --nyNhCFi5SeQhhT5p Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 04:39:51PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:23=E2=80=AFPM Michael Niedermayer > wrote: >=20 > > What i can and did and do suggest is > > "Patches submitted for review to the FFMPEG dev mailing list. As well as > > taking care of all reasonable review comments." > > > > If "all reasonable review comments" is not enough then what are other > > review comments ? Obviously it must be UNreasonable review comments > > >=20 > That's again a strawman. Who decides what is reasonable? Assuming this is > some community-approved process - e.g. the TC, then how is this different > from going through TC to get the patch merged? I think you should sign a SoW that has "Merged in git master" as a Deliverable for 300 commits you spend half a year of ALL your free time on This would be best. I will not sign that and it seems you are ok with it. But lets continue the argument: Let us first assume there is a blocked set of patches because otherwise obviously none of this matters. If you have a contract that says you get payed when code is merged then you cannot submit an invoice before the code is merged so its up to you to make that happen. Doing months long debates on the ML bringing things up to the TC, and there is no gurantee you will succeed or how long this process would take, it could take months or years. You might never get payed as the TC might just decide not to agree with you or might not come to a conclusion. If you have a contract that says you get payed when you took care of all reasonable comments then you can submit an invoice once you done that with documentation what and why is unreasonable. Now you need to be paid, you can just sit back and wait In the background FFmpeg and SPI might invoke the TC to verify the list claimed unreasonable. If the TC agrees you get paid, and the patches maybe would be applied If the TC disagrees there would be more work before you are paid if the TC takes months or comes up with no conclusion. You will need to be paid thx PS: do you have a single person willing to sign this Deliverable you want ? If not, how will the STF thing work ? [...] --=20 Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in physics you will never get a job again. If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in medicin you will get a job for life at the pharma industry. --nyNhCFi5SeQhhT5p Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABEIAB0WIQSf8hKLFH72cwut8TNhHseHBAsPqwUCZcK7CgAKCRBhHseHBAsP q5BdAJ4ovpPxAO2UMPrYGlGZO9Gj8pxBTgCeIRRXSom2MGRvp6FiGSFr2ZmBQYY= =t8E7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nyNhCFi5SeQhhT5p-- --===============1122098907612875710== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 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". --===============1122098907612875710==--