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 F0F3B49755 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 22:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B414968D39D; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:34:47 +0200 (EET) Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.194]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E9568D1F4 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:34:40 +0200 (EET) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07B9F40002 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 22:34:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=niedermayer.cc; s=gm1; t=1708295680; 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=tCnKzBQA05lNX04TbHcJikDgvZbEK1hwEcAeGLX9igU=; b=AVvpkS8HM4QhdawTlxWvfHHlfonx7Upy757YneUYOfYCHK6kwJJX7GG7Ky9LX/frkVtGsQ +Pzj4h2w6HhI3tcQDcClpkPy/W54qioZaZSK+0c++A6YsGBb32A8FR7Z7wwxHjhGDTU7CM l/tkSxkpeM5FlkeTDWn3TuZolTRBjEmMxWUwqAKOPqHZ2HUAZPBkrqxCwsH0ImgvPqHJK1 CXyfvdBbBEmGBcdhUVNSNu1yGEO14tyb4X1pfrYxNQIWDDg5NUu2W8ZPQPT7VkTOZR6f6G 3NjCypif4qpWvZejoju7leEhqIMphGmkH6NLd3bdML1SgF3XIkDYqNGliVccZg== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:34:39 +0100 From: Michael Niedermayer To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: <20240218223439.GP6420@pb2> References: <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> <170828044320.21676.10142270056126999587@lain.khirnov.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <170828044320.21676.10142270056126999587@lain.khirnov.net> X-GND-Sasl: michael@niedermayer.cc 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8925149398182479938==" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --===============8925149398182479938== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FA91UU9AJtTcEtSa" Content-Disposition: inline --FA91UU9AJtTcEtSa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 07:20:43PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Being a party of a disagreement would not make anyones opinon invalid. >=20 > Anything that goes to TC is a disagreement. probably, thats true, yes > Anyone who expressed an > opinion on the patch then is 'a party to the disagreement'. no, i dont see it that way A developer blocking a patch is a party to the disagreement So is the developer who calls the TC because of that. Similarly if you look at real world court cases parties to the lawsuit are the one who is filling the lawsuit and the defendant. The thousand people expressing an oppinion in some random place are not parties to the disagreement More formally, you could define a "party to a disagreement" as all minimal sets of people whos non existence would resolve the disagreement That is if 3 people block a patch all of them are parties to a disagreement but a person expressing an oppinion is not. Also the person(s) calling on t= he TC are parties to a disagreement. And the main author(s) of the patch too a= re >=20 > > But I think it is reasonable that parties of a disagreement cannot be > > the judge of the disagreement. >=20 > Why not? This is one of those truthy-sounding statements that does not > actually hold up to scrutiny. Imagine a judge kills someone and judges himself innocent afterwards in a p= anel of 5 judges * A disagreement implies that there are 2 parties * And we assume here that what one party wants is better for FFmpeg than wh= at the other wants. * The TC needs to find out which partys choice is better or suggest a 3rd c= hoice. * If one but not the other party is a member of the TC then this decission = becomes biased if that member votes Your interpretation suggests that the TC members are "above" everyone and s= hould prevail in arguments they have with others. I dont think the GA has given that power to the TC. thx [...] --=20 Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue. -- Xenocrates --FA91UU9AJtTcEtSa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABEIAB0WIQSf8hKLFH72cwut8TNhHseHBAsPqwUCZdKF+wAKCRBhHseHBAsP q4iBAKCYpk0jA+ntA0ijeOvt04xLAniBKwCggEALdZyHn/5dnI1AT0ucyz9MqxY= =CyHx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FA91UU9AJtTcEtSa-- --===============8925149398182479938== 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". --===============8925149398182479938==--