[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

Hi all

The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
support for new codecs and formats.

Should we
* make a list of longer term goals
* vote on them
* and then together work towards implementing them
?

(The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
 than adding codecs and refactoring code)
It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
to a previously agreed goal.
And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for

(larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
 them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)

Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:

* Switch to a plugin architecture
    (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
     friction as the team and community grows)
* ffchat
    (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
    bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
    all parts for it already but some people where against it
* client side / in browser support
    (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
    bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
    if we let others take this area as its important and significant
* AI / neural network filters and codecs
    The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
    neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
* [your idea here]

thx

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

It is what and why we do it that matters, not just one of them.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne]

Apr 17, 2024, 15:58 by michael@niedermayer.cc:

> Hi all
>
> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> support for new codecs and formats.
>
> Should we
> * make a list of longer term goals
> * vote on them
> * and then together work towards implementing them
> ?
>
> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> to a previously agreed goal.
> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>
> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>
> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>
> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>  (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>  friction as the team and community grows)
>

Just no.


> * ffchat
>  (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>  bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>

Better leave that for others.
There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.


>  all parts for it already but some people where against it
> * client side / in browser support
>  (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>  bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>  if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>

Maybe. Some WASM-based converter would be helpful.
Though it may put us on fire, as we'd be distributing binaries
of our code which may cause issues with "rights holders".


> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>  The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>  neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
>

These take enormous amounts of compute power to
train, vast amounts of good high-quality data, and at
the end, you'd have something as lasting as wet paper,
because a competitor is literally weeks away, and they
beat us with inferior methods by simply having vastly
more compute than we do.


> * [your idea here]
>

We keep doing what we're doing. It's what we're good at.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/17/2024 11:22 AM, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 17, 2024, 15:58 by michael@niedermayer.cc:
> 
>> Hi all
>>
>> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>> support for new codecs and formats.
>>
>> Should we
>> * make a list of longer term goals
>> * vote on them
>> * and then together work towards implementing them
>> ?
>>
>> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>>   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
>> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
>> to a previously agreed goal.
>> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>>
>> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>>   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>>
>> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>>
>> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>>   (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>>   friction as the team and community grows)
>>
> 
> Just no.

Can you elaborate on why? The one thing i think would be problematic is 
making the AVCodec internals public, which could get in the way of 
improvements.

> 
> 
>> * ffchat
>>   (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>>   bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>>
> 
> Better leave that for others.
> There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
> 
> 
>>   all parts for it already but some people where against it
>> * client side / in browser support
>>   (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>>   bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>>   if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>>
> 
> Maybe. Some WASM-based converter would be helpful.
> Though it may put us on fire, as we'd be distributing binaries
> of our code which may cause issues with "rights holders".
> 
> 
>> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>>   The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>>   neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
>>
> 
> These take enormous amounts of compute power to
> train, vast amounts of good high-quality data, and at
> the end, you'd have something as lasting as wet paper,
> because a competitor is literally weeks away, and they
> beat us with inferior methods by simply having vastly
> more compute than we do.

And we can't ship models.

> 
> 
>> * [your idea here]
>>
> 
> We keep doing what we're doing. It's what we're good at.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne]

Apr 17, 2024, 16:34 by jamrial@gmail.com:

> On 4/17/2024 11:22 AM, Lynne wrote:
>
>> Apr 17, 2024, 15:58 by michael@niedermayer.cc:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>>> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>>> support for new codecs and formats.
>>>
>>> Should we
>>> * make a list of longer term goals
>>> * vote on them
>>> * and then together work towards implementing them
>>> ?
>>>
>>> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>>>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
>>> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
>>> to a previously agreed goal.
>>> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>>>
>>> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>>>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>>>
>>> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>>>
>>> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>>>  (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>>>  friction as the team and community grows)
>>>
>>
>> Just no.
>>
>
> Can you elaborate on why? The one thing i think would be problematic is making the AVCodec internals public, which could get in the way of improvements.
>

First, we'd have the bad SoC vendors making binary plugins, with
no attempts made of using existing standards like V4L2 or Vulkan.
Then, we'd have the shit companies making hardware CUDA encoders
and decoders life much easier by no longer having to ship patches,
point to a git version, plus a binary.
We'd have closed-source filters circulating around. Closed-source
improved MPEG-TS or HLS demuxers that we haven't had enough
power to fix.

All of the users of those will send their issues to us.
None of the authors will open-source their work.
We'd receive zero benefits from any of this.
The whole multimedia ecosystem will not benefit from it.
License-wise, it would be like we have an MIT license.
We'd be bound to keep the ABI stable for what may very
well be a very long time, with any breakage creating a Python 3
situation.

It's a bad idea.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1761 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:50:29PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 17, 2024, 16:34 by jamrial@gmail.com:
> 
> > On 4/17/2024 11:22 AM, Lynne wrote:
> >
> >> Apr 17, 2024, 15:58 by michael@niedermayer.cc:
> >>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >>> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >>> support for new codecs and formats.
> >>>
> >>> Should we
> >>> * make a list of longer term goals
> >>> * vote on them
> >>> * and then together work towards implementing them
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >>>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> >>> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> >>> to a previously agreed goal.
> >>> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> >>>
> >>> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >>>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> >>>
> >>> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> >>>
> >>> * Switch to a plugin architecture
> >>>  (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
> >>>  friction as the team and community grows)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just no.
> >>
> >
> > Can you elaborate on why? The one thing i think would be problematic is making the AVCodec internals public, which could get in the way of improvements.
> >
> 
> First, we'd have the bad SoC vendors making binary plugins, with

Make the plugin interface AGPL, problem solved


thx

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

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.
-- Heraclitus

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4427 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:22:03PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 17, 2024, 15:58 by michael@niedermayer.cc:
> 
> > Hi all
> >
> > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > support for new codecs and formats.
> >
> > Should we
> > * make a list of longer term goals
> > * vote on them
> > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > ?
> >
> > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > to a previously agreed goal.
> > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> >
> > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> >
> > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> >
> > * Switch to a plugin architecture
> >  (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
> >  friction as the team and community grows)
> >
> 
> Just no.
> 
> 

> > * ffchat
> >  (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> >  bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> >
> 
> Better leave that for others.
> There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.

iam not following that genre that much ...
so let me ask
are there any that
* preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
* allow audio / video / text chat
* scalable
* need no central server

?


> 
> 
> >  all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > * client side / in browser support
> >  (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> >  bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> >  if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> >
> 
> Maybe. Some WASM-based converter would be helpful.

i think jb once said you where working on something
I do think this would be very cool


> Though it may put us on fire, as we'd be distributing binaries
> of our code which may cause issues with "rights holders".

We dont have to
it would be nice if someone does. But thats not strictly needed
it could be simply a
git clone https://ffmpeg.org/...
make ffwasm
and dumping the result on once own webserver

Important is, that its easy to use.
If one needs to spend hours installing packages and trial and erroring
until it works that would kill it

If someone just has to clone a repo and run ./configure ;make
then put that on ones own server and then can use it from their webstuff
or maybe a Dockerfile that automates the whole build
no idea whats the most convenient

> 
> 
> > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> >  The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> >  neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> >
> 
> These take enormous amounts of compute power to
> train, vast amounts of good high-quality data, and at
> the end, you'd have something as lasting as wet paper,

reminds me of researchers saying in the ninties that videocrypt
needs dedicated hardware FPGAs implementing FFTs to decrypt in
bad grayscale quality.
around 1997 i implemented that in color without FFTs on my
pentium MMX in realtime to watch satelite TV others independantly
did similar things

When i hear needs "enormous amounts" for an algorithm
i tend to add a few "?" in my mind

But as a open source project with millions of users iam not
sure if "compute" would actually be such a big problem
you would only have to figure out how to distribute that
compute over volunteers


> because a competitor is literally weeks away, and they
> beat us with inferior methods by simply having vastly
> more compute than we do.

i think a question is, if one enjoys working on the
technology and algorithms



> 
> 
> > * [your idea here]
> >
> 
> We keep doing what we're doing. It's what we're good at.

Coordinating a bit more than that would help bigger efforts

thx

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

Many things microsoft did are stupid, but not doing something just because
microsoft did it is even more stupid. If everything ms did were stupid they
would be bankrupt already.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

Hello,

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 17:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > * ffchat
>> >  (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>> >  bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>> >
>> 
>> Better leave that for others.
>> There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
>
> iam not following that genre that much ...
> so let me ask
> are there any that
> * preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
> * allow audio / video / text chat
> * scalable
> * need no central server

Matrix? Elements? Mattermost? Rocket.chat? Jitsi?

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
+33 672 704 734
https://jbkempf.com/
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1748 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:55:04PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 17:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > * ffchat
> >> >  (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> >> >  bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Better leave that for others.
> >> There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
> >
> > iam not following that genre that much ...
> > so let me ask
> > are there any that
> > * preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
> > * allow audio / video / text chat
> > * scalable
> > * need no central server
> 
> Matrix? Elements? Mattermost? Rocket.chat? Jitsi?

These seem quite complex systems

Matrix says "(optional) end-to-end encryption" which for me is a fail

https://jitsi.org/security/
nicely explains their security. And i agree that anything running
primarely in a browser controlled by google cannot provide security/privacy

what i had in mind with ffchat initially was a much simpler system
simply something where 2+ people could connect and communicate with
video and audio (text being easy to add).

The complexity of ffchat would be more between /doc/examples and
ffplay.
My basic idea was that people would be identified by their public key
hash + DNS name. And then just setup a connection in a ffplay like
interface.
Its a good example on how to use our libs in a realtime chat app
and it allows us to grow it if we want at any time

thx

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

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in
ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 17.04.2024 20:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:55:04PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 17:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>> * ffchat
>>>>>   (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>>>>>   bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Better leave that for others.
>>>> There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
>>>
>>> iam not following that genre that much ...
>>> so let me ask
>>> are there any that
>>> * preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
>>> * allow audio / video / text chat
>>> * scalable
>>> * need no central server
>>
>> Matrix? Elements? Mattermost? Rocket.chat? Jitsi?
> 
> These seem quite complex systems
> 
> Matrix says "(optional) end-to-end encryption" which for me is a fail
> 
> https://jitsi.org/security/
> nicely explains their security. And i agree that anything running
> primarely in a browser controlled by google cannot provide security/privacy
> 
> what i had in mind with ffchat initially was a much simpler system
> simply something where 2+ people could connect and communicate with
> video and audio (text being easy to add).
> 
> The complexity of ffchat would be more between /doc/examples and
> ffplay.
> My basic idea was that people would be identified by their public key
> hash + DNS name. And then just setup a connection in a ffplay like
> interface.

That sounds a bit like re-inventing Tox.
Which sadly seems a bit dead.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2303 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:31:42PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 17.04.2024 20:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:55:04PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 17:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > * ffchat
> > > > > >   (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > > >   bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Better leave that for others.
> > > > > There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
> > > > 
> > > > iam not following that genre that much ...
> > > > so let me ask
> > > > are there any that
> > > > * preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
> > > > * allow audio / video / text chat
> > > > * scalable
> > > > * need no central server
> > > 
> > > Matrix? Elements? Mattermost? Rocket.chat? Jitsi?
> > 
> > These seem quite complex systems
> > 
> > Matrix says "(optional) end-to-end encryption" which for me is a fail
> > 
> > https://jitsi.org/security/
> > nicely explains their security. And i agree that anything running
> > primarely in a browser controlled by google cannot provide security/privacy
> > 
> > what i had in mind with ffchat initially was a much simpler system
> > simply something where 2+ people could connect and communicate with
> > video and audio (text being easy to add).
> > 
> > The complexity of ffchat would be more between /doc/examples and
> > ffplay.
> > My basic idea was that people would be identified by their public key
> > hash + DNS name. And then just setup a connection in a ffplay like
> > interface.
> 
> That sounds a bit like re-inventing Tox.

indeed, i didnt know tox. So this would leave this just being a code
example or a much more massive project both seem not that usefull or
realistic ATM. the only problem is


> Which sadly seems a bit dead.

yes, tox seems dead

thx

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

"You are 36 times more likely to die in a bathtub than at the hands of a
terrorist. Also, you are 2.5 times more likely to become a president and
2 times more likely to become an astronaut, than to die in a terrorist
attack." -- Thoughty2


[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2680 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:22:33AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:31:42PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > On 17.04.2024 20:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:55:04PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 17:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > > * ffchat
> > > > > > >   (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > > > >   bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Better leave that for others.
> > > > > > There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
> > > > > 
> > > > > iam not following that genre that much ...
> > > > > so let me ask
> > > > > are there any that
> > > > > * preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
> > > > > * allow audio / video / text chat
> > > > > * scalable
> > > > > * need no central server
> > > > 
> > > > Matrix? Elements? Mattermost? Rocket.chat? Jitsi?
> > > 
> > > These seem quite complex systems
> > > 
> > > Matrix says "(optional) end-to-end encryption" which for me is a fail
> > > 
> > > https://jitsi.org/security/
> > > nicely explains their security. And i agree that anything running
> > > primarely in a browser controlled by google cannot provide security/privacy
> > > 
> > > what i had in mind with ffchat initially was a much simpler system
> > > simply something where 2+ people could connect and communicate with
> > > video and audio (text being easy to add).
> > > 
> > > The complexity of ffchat would be more between /doc/examples and
> > > ffplay.
> > > My basic idea was that people would be identified by their public key
> > > hash + DNS name. And then just setup a connection in a ffplay like
> > > interface.
> > 
> > That sounds a bit like re-inventing Tox.
> 
> indeed, i didnt know tox. So this would leave this just being a code
> example or a much more massive project both seem not that usefull or
> realistic ATM. the only problem is
> 
> 
> > Which sadly seems a bit dead.
> 
> yes, tox seems dead

actually,
it seems not dead, just their ML is dead, their IRC is pointing to tox group
one cant join with the current tox clients in ubuntu (or i dont know how)
then several git repositories are dead
but https://github.com/TokTok/c-toxcore seems alive, it has a release 3 weeks ago
I dont know how all these relate but things link a bit in circles

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. 
-- Abba Eban

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Frank Plowman]

On 17/04/2024 16:22, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:22:03PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
>> Apr 17, 2024, 15:58 by michael@niedermayer.cc:
>>> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>>>  
>>>  [...]
>>>
>>
>> Just no.
>>
>>> * ffchat
>>>  (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>>>  bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>>>
>>
>> Better leave that for others.
>> There's an infinite amount of discord clones already.
> 
> iam not following that genre that much ...
> so let me ask
> are there any that
> * preserve privacy (discord is not secure/private)
> * allow audio / video / text chat
> * scalable
> * need no central server
> 
> ?
> 

This is what Matrix (https://matrix.org/) is attempting as I understand
it, among others I'm sure.  This is very ambitious, and I suspect
outside most FFmpeg developers' specialisms.

-- 
Frank
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On 17/04/2024 14:58, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> support for new codecs and formats.
>
> Should we
> * make a list of longer term goals
> * vote on them
> * and then together work towards implementing them
> ?
>
> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> to a previously agreed goal.
> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>
> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>
> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>
> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>      (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>       friction as the team and community grows)
> * ffchat
>      (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>      bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>      all parts for it already but some people where against it
> * client side / in browser support
>      (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>      bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>      if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>      The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>      neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> * [your idea here]
>
> thx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".


I've occasionally tried getting into ffmpeg for over a decade now, and have
lurked here for the past few months as I put in the effort to grok it.
On behalf of people who could contribute but don't, I'd like to suggest
ffmpeg focus on *learnability*.

Whenever I've tried to learn ffmpeg, I've always been rebuffed by
documentation that seems needlessly hard to use.  I understand some of
these reflect deeper issues - for example there's a reason the words
"ffmpeg" and "libav" are used ambiguously, even though it makes it
hard to differentiate between the library and the command-line tool.
But other issues seem like quick wins - for example I've lost count of
all the times I typed two functions into Google, spent hours trying to
make them work together, then finally realised I was looking at the
documentation for 3.0 in one tab and 5.0 in the other.  Surely you can
just add a line to the top of the documentation like "click here to see
the trunk version of this file"?

Here's a small example to demonstrate the larger issue -
what does it mean for something to be a "context"?

When I started learning how to write ffmpeg code, I read through the
docs and saw various things calling themselves "context" structs, but
never found a link to explain what that meant.  If I was a young
developer, I would probably have just assumed it was standard
programming jargon I was too dumb to know, and walked away to find
something more my speed.  But I'm old and stubborn and have nothing
better to do right now, so I kept going...

I tried to learn by going through the examples, but the nearest thing
to an explanation was e.g. `transcode.c` making up a new type and
calling it a `FilteringContext`.  I ignored the AVClass documentation
for a long time because the name made me think it was some kind of
GObject-style C-with-classes thing.  It was only when I noticed that
it says it describes "the class of an AVClass context structure" that
I realised what I was looking at.  And it was only when I convinced
myself that the documentation for AVOptions was using
"AVOptions-enabled struct" to mean the same thing as "AVClass context
structure" that I felt able to disregard the `FilteringContext`.  So
my current opinion is that "AVOptions-enabled struct", "AVClass
context structure" and "context structure" are different terms for the
same thing - but now I've said that publicly, I will no doubt find an
"SwrClass context structure" or something tomorrow.

To bring this back to ffmpeg development - I made a note to write a
patch saying they were synonyms and linking that explanation from
e.g. AVCodecContext, but the job has been rotting away in my todo list
for a month now waiting for me to be "sure I've got it right" (i.e. to
give up a perfect excuse for procrastination).  To be blunt, on some
level it feels like I've put more in than I've got out of that problem,
and haven't been able to psych myself up to submit a patch that could
get me laughed out of the room (or worse, politely ignored).  If the
project was otherwise easy-to-learn, I would have felt a much stronger
sense of obligation to pay that back.

 	- Andrew Sayers
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 17:24:02 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> On 17/04/2024 14:58, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> I've occasionally tried getting into ffmpeg for over a decade now, and have
> lurked here for the past few months as I put in the effort to grok it.
> On behalf of people who could contribute but don't, I'd like to suggest
> ffmpeg focus on *learnability*.
> 

> Whenever I've tried to learn ffmpeg, I've always been rebuffed by
> documentation that seems needlessly hard to use.  I understand some of
> these reflect deeper issues - for example there's a reason the words
> "ffmpeg" and "libav" are used ambiguously, even though it makes it
> hard to differentiate between the library and the command-line tool.

> But other issues seem like quick wins - for example I've lost count of
> all the times I typed two functions into Google, spent hours trying to
> make them work together, then finally realised I was looking at the
> documentation for 3.0 in one tab and 5.0 in the other.  Surely you can
> just add a line to the top of the documentation like "click here to see
> the trunk version of this file"?

Functions are documented in doxygen, so they depend on the major.minor
version, while you seem to refer to the FFmpeg version. Also on the
website we usually only have the latest mainline documentation, so I
don't understand how can you have different versions in different tabs
(unless you didn't update that tab since months/years).

If you mean that we should ship documentatation for the latest
supported releases, in addition to latest mainline, I tend to agree.

> Here's a small example to demonstrate the larger issue -
> what does it mean for something to be a "context"?
> When I started learning how to write ffmpeg code, I read through the
> docs and saw various things calling themselves "context" structs, but
> never found a link to explain what that meant.  If I was a young
> developer, I would probably have just assumed it was standard
> programming jargon I was too dumb to know, and walked away to find
> something more my speed.  But I'm old and stubborn and have nothing
> better to do right now, so I kept going...
> 
> I tried to learn by going through the examples, but the nearest thing
> to an explanation was e.g. `transcode.c` making up a new type and
> calling it a `FilteringContext`.  I ignored the AVClass documentation
> for a long time because the name made me think it was some kind of
> GObject-style C-with-classes thing.  It was only when I noticed that
> it says it describes "the class of an AVClass context structure" that
> I realised what I was looking at.  And it was only when I convinced
> myself that the documentation for AVOptions was using

> "AVOptions-enabled struct" to mean the same thing as "AVClass context
> structure" that I felt able to disregard the `FilteringContext`.  So
> my current opinion is that "AVOptions-enabled struct", "AVClass
> context structure" and "context structure" are different terms for the
> same thing - but now I've said that publicly, I will no doubt find an
> "SwrClass context structure" or something tomorrow.

In general, a "context" in the FFmpeg jargon is usually a data
structure providing the context/state/configuration for a given
operation, which can be muxing, demuxing, decoding, encoding,
filtering etc.

You need to fill the "context" with the configuration parameters and
with the data needed for the specific operation.

In general, when setting up a context, you also want some facilities
to avoid to repeat logic again and again:
- you want to provide means to send log messages
- you want an interface to query, set, and get options
- you want a "private" internal context, with options/parameters
  specific for a particular instance of a generic context. For example
  you might want to set specific options which only apply to a given
  encoder (these are so-called "private" options)

This is done through the AVClass structure, which being generic is
used in various parts of FFmpeg.

The AVOption interface wass added later, so depending on your usage,
you might be directly setting a field in the context of set an option
through the AVOption programming interface.

Currently this is the documentation for AVCodecContext:

/**
 * main external API structure.
 * New fields can be added to the end with minor version bumps.
 * Removal, reordering and changes to existing fields require a major
 * version bump.
 * You can use AVOptions (av_opt* / av_set/get*()) to access these fields from user
 * applications.
 * The name string for AVOptions options matches the associated command line
 * parameter name and can be found in libavcodec/options_table.h
 * The AVOption/command line parameter names differ in some cases from the C
 * structure field names for historic reasons or brevity.
 * sizeof(AVCodecContext) must not be used outside libav*.
 */
typedef struct AVCodecContext {

I agree this might be improved/updated, "main external API structure"
is indeeed pretty vague and it misses many references to other part of
the API (in particular the AVOption one defined in
libavutil). Probably sending a patch to expand/extend/clarify this
would be a good starting point.

> To bring this back to ffmpeg development - I made a note to write a
> patch saying they were synonyms and linking that explanation from
> e.g. AVCodecContext, but the job has been rotting away in my todo list
> for a month now waiting for me to be "sure I've got it right" (i.e. to
> give up a perfect excuse for procrastination).  To be blunt, on some
> level it feels like I've put more in than I've got out of that problem,
> and haven't been able to psych myself up to submit a patch that could
> get me laughed out of the room (or worse, politely ignored).  If the
> project was otherwise easy-to-learn, I would have felt a much stronger
> sense of obligation to pay that back.

This looks like the usual pattern: experienced API developers don't
feel the need to improve the docs, so they have no real incentives to
do so; outsiders might need to improve it, but this means to
understand the intricacies of the framework, and by the time they got
it they probably don't need it anymore.

Also writing good documentation - as writing good prose - is *hard*,
but in general bad is better than nothing.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 18 Apr 2024, at 9:52, Stefano Sabatini wrote:

> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 17:24:02 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>> On 17/04/2024 14:58, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
>> I've occasionally tried getting into ffmpeg for over a decade now, and have
>> lurked here for the past few months as I put in the effort to grok it.
>> On behalf of people who could contribute but don't, I'd like to suggest
>> ffmpeg focus on *learnability*.
>>
>
>> Whenever I've tried to learn ffmpeg, I've always been rebuffed by
>> documentation that seems needlessly hard to use.  I understand some of
>> these reflect deeper issues - for example there's a reason the words
>> "ffmpeg" and "libav" are used ambiguously, even though it makes it
>> hard to differentiate between the library and the command-line tool.
>
>> But other issues seem like quick wins - for example I've lost count of
>> all the times I typed two functions into Google, spent hours trying to
>> make them work together, then finally realised I was looking at the
>> documentation for 3.0 in one tab and 5.0 in the other.  Surely you can
>> just add a line to the top of the documentation like "click here to see
>> the trunk version of this file"?
>
> Functions are documented in doxygen, so they depend on the major.minor
> version, while you seem to refer to the FFmpeg version. Also on the
> website we usually only have the latest mainline documentation, so I
> don't understand how can you have different versions in different tabs
> (unless you didn't update that tab since months/years).

Thats not true and same things has happened to me multiple times,
thats why I always have to check the URL to make sure the docs
are the ones for master or latest release I am working with.

For example see this ancient documentation here:
https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/1.2/index.html

We generate those for each FFmpeg version afaik, not MAJOR-MINOR of the
libraries:

https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/6.0/index.html

Maybe Michael can clarify, as I have no way to check how these are actually
generated for the website, if this is by branch of some other logic or
completely manual.

I do agree with OP that it would be VERY helpful to have some note there on
old docs or some overview of the different versions at least, so that its clear
you are looking at older ones…

>
> If you mean that we should ship documentatation for the latest
> supported releases, in addition to latest mainline, I tend to agree.
>
>> Here's a small example to demonstrate the larger issue -
>> what does it mean for something to be a "context"?
>> When I started learning how to write ffmpeg code, I read through the
>> docs and saw various things calling themselves "context" structs, but
>> never found a link to explain what that meant.  If I was a young
>> developer, I would probably have just assumed it was standard
>> programming jargon I was too dumb to know, and walked away to find
>> something more my speed.  But I'm old and stubborn and have nothing
>> better to do right now, so I kept going...
>>
>> I tried to learn by going through the examples, but the nearest thing
>> to an explanation was e.g. `transcode.c` making up a new type and
>> calling it a `FilteringContext`.  I ignored the AVClass documentation
>> for a long time because the name made me think it was some kind of
>> GObject-style C-with-classes thing.  It was only when I noticed that
>> it says it describes "the class of an AVClass context structure" that
>> I realised what I was looking at.  And it was only when I convinced
>> myself that the documentation for AVOptions was using
>
>> "AVOptions-enabled struct" to mean the same thing as "AVClass context
>> structure" that I felt able to disregard the `FilteringContext`.  So
>> my current opinion is that "AVOptions-enabled struct", "AVClass
>> context structure" and "context structure" are different terms for the
>> same thing - but now I've said that publicly, I will no doubt find an
>> "SwrClass context structure" or something tomorrow.
>
> In general, a "context" in the FFmpeg jargon is usually a data
> structure providing the context/state/configuration for a given
> operation, which can be muxing, demuxing, decoding, encoding,
> filtering etc.
>
> You need to fill the "context" with the configuration parameters and
> with the data needed for the specific operation.
>
> In general, when setting up a context, you also want some facilities
> to avoid to repeat logic again and again:
> - you want to provide means to send log messages
> - you want an interface to query, set, and get options
> - you want a "private" internal context, with options/parameters
>   specific for a particular instance of a generic context. For example
>   you might want to set specific options which only apply to a given
>   encoder (these are so-called "private" options)
>
> This is done through the AVClass structure, which being generic is
> used in various parts of FFmpeg.
>
> The AVOption interface wass added later, so depending on your usage,
> you might be directly setting a field in the context of set an option
> through the AVOption programming interface.
>
> Currently this is the documentation for AVCodecContext:
>
> /**
>  * main external API structure.
>  * New fields can be added to the end with minor version bumps.
>  * Removal, reordering and changes to existing fields require a major
>  * version bump.
>  * You can use AVOptions (av_opt* / av_set/get*()) to access these fields from user
>  * applications.
>  * The name string for AVOptions options matches the associated command line
>  * parameter name and can be found in libavcodec/options_table.h
>  * The AVOption/command line parameter names differ in some cases from the C
>  * structure field names for historic reasons or brevity.
>  * sizeof(AVCodecContext) must not be used outside libav*.
>  */
> typedef struct AVCodecContext {
>
> I agree this might be improved/updated, "main external API structure"
> is indeeed pretty vague and it misses many references to other part of
> the API (in particular the AVOption one defined in
> libavutil). Probably sending a patch to expand/extend/clarify this
> would be a good starting point.
>
>> To bring this back to ffmpeg development - I made a note to write a
>> patch saying they were synonyms and linking that explanation from
>> e.g. AVCodecContext, but the job has been rotting away in my todo list
>> for a month now waiting for me to be "sure I've got it right" (i.e. to
>> give up a perfect excuse for procrastination).  To be blunt, on some
>> level it feels like I've put more in than I've got out of that problem,
>> and haven't been able to psych myself up to submit a patch that could
>> get me laughed out of the room (or worse, politely ignored).  If the
>> project was otherwise easy-to-learn, I would have felt a much stronger
>> sense of obligation to pay that back.
>
> This looks like the usual pattern: experienced API developers don't
> feel the need to improve the docs, so they have no real incentives to
> do so; outsiders might need to improve it, but this means to
> understand the intricacies of the framework, and by the time they got
> it they probably don't need it anymore.
>
> Also writing good documentation - as writing good prose - is *hard*,
> but in general bad is better than nothing.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On 18/04/2024 10:13, epirat07@gmail.com wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2024, at 9:52, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 17:24:02 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2024 14:58, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I've occasionally tried getting into ffmpeg for over a decade now, and have
>>> lurked here for the past few months as I put in the effort to grok it.
>>> On behalf of people who could contribute but don't, I'd like to suggest
>>> ffmpeg focus on *learnability*.
>>>
[...]
>>> But other issues seem like quick wins - for example I've lost count of
>>> all the times I typed two functions into Google, spent hours trying to
>>> make them work together, then finally realised I was looking at the
>>> documentation for 3.0 in one tab and 5.0 in the other.  Surely you can
>>> just add a line to the top of the documentation like "click here to see
>>> the trunk version of this file"?
>> Functions are documented in doxygen, so they depend on the major.minor
>> version, while you seem to refer to the FFmpeg version. Also on the
>> website we usually only have the latest mainline documentation, so I
>> don't understand how can you have different versions in different tabs
>> (unless you didn't update that tab since months/years).
> Thats not true and same things has happened to me multiple times,
> thats why I always have to check the URL to make sure the docs
> are the ones for master or latest release I am working with.
>
> For example see this ancient documentation here:
> https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/1.2/index.html

I'm glad I'm not the only one making that mistake!  In fact, older versions
don't just exist, they're often the first link in Google.  For example,
typing "avformat_init_output" into Google and clicking on the first link
takes me to [1] (version 3.2).

The website doesn't have documentation for 6.1 or 7.0 ([2] and [3]),
which might have made it look like only trunk is supported?  I agree
older versions should be documented (and 6.1/7.0 added), because
sometimes you need to develop software that works with older versions,
so you *want* to compare documentation between two tabs.

If people reading the documentation should think in terms of major.minor,
how about automatically editing the PROJECT_NUMBER in doc/Doxyfile to
include that information?  That wouldn't be obvious enough to solve
the "two tabs" problem (e.g. I've had it with 1.0 documentation before now,
even though the formatting is completely different), but it would at least
mean the information is available on the page.


> We generate those for each FFmpeg version afaik, not MAJOR-MINOR of the
> libraries:
>
> https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/6.0/index.html
>
> Maybe Michael can clarify, as I have no way to check how these are actually
> generated for the website, if this is by branch of some other logic or
> completely manual.
>
> I do agree with OP that it would be VERY helpful to have some note there on
> old docs or some overview of the different versions at least, so that its clear
> you are looking at older ones…
Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing 
how docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating 
documentation locally and making cross-references between versions, but 
some functionality is hidden behind #ifdef's (e.g. deprecations), and 
I've never been able to work out the exact magic words the site uses. 
Also, the anchors for individual functions on the site don't always 
match the ones generated locally, so I can't e.g. create my own docs and 
link to the public ones. [snip - useful information about contexts] Well 
now I guess I have to stop procrastinating! I'll write up my 
understanding (which is probably still a bit wrong) and send in a patch 
for discussion.
>>> To bring this back to ffmpeg development - I made a note to write a
>>> patch saying they were synonyms and linking that explanation from
>>> e.g. AVCodecContext, but the job has been rotting away in my todo list
>>> for a month now waiting for me to be "sure I've got it right" (i.e. to
>>> give up a perfect excuse for procrastination).  To be blunt, on some
>>> level it feels like I've put more in than I've got out of that problem,
>>> and haven't been able to psych myself up to submit a patch that could
>>> get me laughed out of the room (or worse, politely ignored).  If the
>>> project was otherwise easy-to-learn, I would have felt a much stronger
>>> sense of obligation to pay that back.
>> This looks like the usual pattern: experienced API developers don't
>> feel the need to improve the docs, so they have no real incentives to
>> do so; outsiders might need to improve it, but this means to
>> understand the intricacies of the framework, and by the time they got
>> it they probably don't need it anymore.
>>
>> Also writing good documentation - as writing good prose - is *hard*,
>> but in general bad is better than nothing.

I agree writing good documentation is hard, but IMHO FFmpeg's problem
is just about optimisation, which people round here are excellent at.
Whether optimising code or docs, you step through the process the hardware
(reader) goes through, look for wasted cycles, and fix those places.
Sometimes the solution is highly technical (spend a week learning about
SIMD or active language), but most of the time it's trivial (move a test
to an outer loop or add a link from the place where people look for it).

I bring this up here because I've seen experienced developers on the list
mention the need to bring in newbies, which means improving learnability
(mostly docs, but e.g. all the special cases in the code are problems too).
So hopefully a 5 year plan can emphasise the (indirect) need amongst people
who can do something about it.

 	- Andrew Sayers

[1] https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/3.2/group__lavf__encoding.html
[2] https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/6.1/
[3] https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/7.0/
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2934 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 10:13, epirat07@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 18 Apr 2024, at 9:52, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 17:24:02 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> > > > On 17/04/2024 14:58, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > I've occasionally tried getting into ffmpeg for over a decade now, and have
> > > > lurked here for the past few months as I put in the effort to grok it.
> > > > On behalf of people who could contribute but don't, I'd like to suggest
> > > > ffmpeg focus on *learnability*.
> > > > 
> [...]
> > > > But other issues seem like quick wins - for example I've lost count of
> > > > all the times I typed two functions into Google, spent hours trying to
> > > > make them work together, then finally realised I was looking at the
> > > > documentation for 3.0 in one tab and 5.0 in the other.  Surely you can
> > > > just add a line to the top of the documentation like "click here to see
> > > > the trunk version of this file"?
> > > Functions are documented in doxygen, so they depend on the major.minor
> > > version, while you seem to refer to the FFmpeg version. Also on the
> > > website we usually only have the latest mainline documentation, so I
> > > don't understand how can you have different versions in different tabs
> > > (unless you didn't update that tab since months/years).
> > Thats not true and same things has happened to me multiple times,
> > thats why I always have to check the URL to make sure the docs
> > are the ones for master or latest release I am working with.
> > 
> > For example see this ancient documentation here:
> > https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/1.2/index.html
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only one making that mistake!  In fact, older versions
> don't just exist, they're often the first link in Google.  For example,
> typing "avformat_init_output" into Google and clicking on the first link
> takes me to [1] (version 3.2).
> 
> The website doesn't have documentation for 6.1 or 7.0 ([2] and [3]),

the docs for master are generated by a cronjob
the docs for releases are manually generated,
thx for reminding me about it, ive generated the 6.1 and 7.0 ones now


[...]
> Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing how
> docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating documentation

its just running doxygen with a Doxyfile
the Doxyfile is not  doc/Doxyfile from git because that could be a security
issue. But its a very similar file

thx

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

Dictatorship: All citizens are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the politicians to enforce control.
Democracy: All politicians are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the citizens to enforce control.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/18/2024 4:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>> On 18/04/2024 10:13, epirat07@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 18 Apr 2024, at 9:52, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>>> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 17:24:02 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>>>>> On 17/04/2024 14:58, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I've occasionally tried getting into ffmpeg for over a decade now, and have
>>>>> lurked here for the past few months as I put in the effort to grok it.
>>>>> On behalf of people who could contribute but don't, I'd like to suggest
>>>>> ffmpeg focus on *learnability*.
>>>>>
>> [...]
>>>>> But other issues seem like quick wins - for example I've lost count of
>>>>> all the times I typed two functions into Google, spent hours trying to
>>>>> make them work together, then finally realised I was looking at the
>>>>> documentation for 3.0 in one tab and 5.0 in the other.  Surely you can
>>>>> just add a line to the top of the documentation like "click here to see
>>>>> the trunk version of this file"?
>>>> Functions are documented in doxygen, so they depend on the major.minor
>>>> version, while you seem to refer to the FFmpeg version. Also on the
>>>> website we usually only have the latest mainline documentation, so I
>>>> don't understand how can you have different versions in different tabs
>>>> (unless you didn't update that tab since months/years).
>>> Thats not true and same things has happened to me multiple times,
>>> thats why I always have to check the URL to make sure the docs
>>> are the ones for master or latest release I am working with.
>>>
>>> For example see this ancient documentation here:
>>> https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/1.2/index.html
>>
>> I'm glad I'm not the only one making that mistake!  In fact, older versions
>> don't just exist, they're often the first link in Google.  For example,
>> typing "avformat_init_output" into Google and clicking on the first link
>> takes me to [1] (version 3.2).
>>
>> The website doesn't have documentation for 6.1 or 7.0 ([2] and [3]),
> 
> the docs for master are generated by a cronjob
> the docs for releases are manually generated,
> thx for reminding me about it, ive generated the 6.1 and 7.0 ones now

I updated https://ffmpeg.org/documentation.html with links to them.

> 
> 
> [...]
>> Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing how
>> docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating documentation
> 
> its just running doxygen with a Doxyfile
> the Doxyfile is not  doc/Doxyfile from git because that could be a security
> issue. But its a very similar file
> 
> thx
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On 18/04/2024 20:50, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> [...]
>> Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing how
>> docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating documentation
> its just running doxygen with a Doxyfile
> the Doxyfile is not  doc/Doxyfile from git because that could be a security
> issue. But its a very similar file
>
> thx

Aha!  But it's running doxygen i386, right?  I've been building the docs
with an x86_64 machine, and the links to most functions are different.
Installing doxygen:i386 seems to fix it.

Assuming the security issue is just that people could inject arbitrary code
into the Doxyfile, is it possible to upload that file somewhere, then
link to it (and mention the architecture thing) from e.g. the README?

To be clear - it's definitely the right move to run a version of doxygen
that generates links that are compatible with older releases,
but it would have saved me some time if that was written somewhere :)

 	- Andrew Sayers
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1634 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:01:42PM +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 20:50, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > > Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing how
> > > docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating documentation
> > its just running doxygen with a Doxyfile
> > the Doxyfile is not  doc/Doxyfile from git because that could be a security
> > issue. But its a very similar file
> > 
> > thx
> 
> Aha!  But it's running doxygen i386, right?  I've been building the docs
> with an x86_64 machine, and the links to most functions are different.
> Installing doxygen:i386 seems to fix it.
> 
> Assuming the security issue is just that people could inject arbitrary code
> into the Doxyfile, is it possible to upload that file somewhere, then
> link to it (and mention the architecture thing) from e.g. the README?
> 
> To be clear - it's definitely the right move to run a version of doxygen
> that generates links that are compatible with older releases,
> but it would have saved me some time if that was written somewhere :)

doxygen on the server is 1.8.17, amd64 architecture

The used Doxyfile is attached, someone probably should go over it and
reduce differences to what is in git master (and then send me a patch)
without breaking any past release branch
i dont have the time for that

thx

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

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety -- Benjamin Franklin

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Doxyfile --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 77899 bytes --]

# Doxyfile 1.8.2

# This file describes the settings to be used by the documentation system
# doxygen (www.doxygen.org) for a project.
#
# All text after a hash (#) is considered a comment and will be ignored.
# The format is:
#       TAG = value [value, ...]
# For lists items can also be appended using:
#       TAG += value [value, ...]
# Values that contain spaces should be placed between quotes (" ").

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Project related configuration options
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# This tag specifies the encoding used for all characters in the config file
# that follow. The default is UTF-8 which is also the encoding used for all
# text before the first occurrence of this tag. Doxygen uses libiconv (or the
# iconv built into libc) for the transcoding. See
# http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv for the list of possible encodings.

DOXYFILE_ENCODING      = UTF-8

# The PROJECT_NAME tag is a single word (or sequence of words) that should
# identify the project. Note that if you do not use Doxywizard you need
# to put quotes around the project name if it contains spaces.

PROJECT_NAME           = FFmpeg

# The PROJECT_NUMBER tag can be used to enter a project or revision number.
# This could be handy for archiving the generated documentation or
# if some version control system is used.

PROJECT_NUMBER         =

# Using the PROJECT_BRIEF tag one can provide an optional one line description
# for a project that appears at the top of each page and should give viewer
# a quick idea about the purpose of the project. Keep the description short.

PROJECT_BRIEF          =

# With the PROJECT_LOGO tag one can specify an logo or icon that is
# included in the documentation. The maximum height of the logo should not
# exceed 55 pixels and the maximum width should not exceed 200 pixels.
# Doxygen will copy the logo to the output directory.

PROJECT_LOGO           =

# The OUTPUT_DIRECTORY tag is used to specify the (relative or absolute)
# base path where the generated documentation will be put.
# If a relative path is entered, it will be relative to the location
# where doxygen was started. If left blank the current directory will be used.

OUTPUT_DIRECTORY       = doxy

# If the CREATE_SUBDIRS tag is set to YES, then doxygen will create
# 4096 sub-directories (in 2 levels) under the output directory of each output
# format and will distribute the generated files over these directories.
# Enabling this option can be useful when feeding doxygen a huge amount of
# source files, where putting all generated files in the same directory would
# otherwise cause performance problems for the file system.

CREATE_SUBDIRS         = NO

# The OUTPUT_LANGUAGE tag is used to specify the language in which all
# documentation generated by doxygen is written. Doxygen will use this
# information to generate all constant output in the proper language.
# The default language is English, other supported languages are:
# Afrikaans, Arabic, Brazilian, Catalan, Chinese, Chinese-Traditional,
# Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Esperanto, Farsi, Finnish, French, German,
# Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Japanese-en (Japanese with English
# messages), Korean, Korean-en, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Macedonian, Persian,
# Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Serbian-Cyrillic, Slovak,
# Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese.

OUTPUT_LANGUAGE        = English

# If the BRIEF_MEMBER_DESC tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# include brief member descriptions after the members that are listed in
# the file and class documentation (similar to JavaDoc).
# Set to NO to disable this.

BRIEF_MEMBER_DESC      = YES

# If the REPEAT_BRIEF tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will prepend
# the brief description of a member or function before the detailed description.
# Note: if both HIDE_UNDOC_MEMBERS and BRIEF_MEMBER_DESC are set to NO, the
# brief descriptions will be completely suppressed.

REPEAT_BRIEF           = YES

# This tag implements a quasi-intelligent brief description abbreviator
# that is used to form the text in various listings. Each string
# in this list, if found as the leading text of the brief description, will be
# stripped from the text and the result after processing the whole list, is
# used as the annotated text. Otherwise, the brief description is used as-is.
# If left blank, the following values are used ("$name" is automatically
# replaced with the name of the entity): "The $name class" "The $name widget"
# "The $name file" "is" "provides" "specifies" "contains"
# "represents" "a" "an" "the"

ABBREVIATE_BRIEF       =

# If the ALWAYS_DETAILED_SEC and REPEAT_BRIEF tags are both set to YES then
# Doxygen will generate a detailed section even if there is only a brief
# description.

ALWAYS_DETAILED_SEC    = NO

# If the INLINE_INHERITED_MEMB tag is set to YES, doxygen will show all
# inherited members of a class in the documentation of that class as if those
# members were ordinary class members. Constructors, destructors and assignment
# operators of the base classes will not be shown.

INLINE_INHERITED_MEMB  = NO

# If the FULL_PATH_NAMES tag is set to YES then Doxygen will prepend the full
# path before files name in the file list and in the header files. If set
# to NO the shortest path that makes the file name unique will be used.

FULL_PATH_NAMES        = YES

# If the FULL_PATH_NAMES tag is set to YES then the STRIP_FROM_PATH tag
# can be used to strip a user-defined part of the path. Stripping is
# only done if one of the specified strings matches the left-hand part of
# the path. The tag can be used to show relative paths in the file list.
# If left blank the directory from which doxygen is run is used as the
# path to strip. Note that you specify absolute paths here, but also
# relative paths, which will be relative from the directory where doxygen is
# started.

STRIP_FROM_PATH        = .

# The STRIP_FROM_INC_PATH tag can be used to strip a user-defined part of
# the path mentioned in the documentation of a class, which tells
# the reader which header file to include in order to use a class.
# If left blank only the name of the header file containing the class
# definition is used. Otherwise one should specify the include paths that
# are normally passed to the compiler using the -I flag.

STRIP_FROM_INC_PATH    =

# If the SHORT_NAMES tag is set to YES, doxygen will generate much shorter
# (but less readable) file names. This can be useful if your file system
# doesn't support long names like on DOS, Mac, or CD-ROM.

SHORT_NAMES            = NO

# If the JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF tag is set to YES then Doxygen
# will interpret the first line (until the first dot) of a JavaDoc-style
# comment as the brief description. If set to NO, the JavaDoc
# comments will behave just like regular Qt-style comments
# (thus requiring an explicit @brief command for a brief description.)

JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF      = YES

# If the QT_AUTOBRIEF tag is set to YES then Doxygen will
# interpret the first line (until the first dot) of a Qt-style
# comment as the brief description. If set to NO, the comments
# will behave just like regular Qt-style comments (thus requiring
# an explicit \brief command for a brief description.)

QT_AUTOBRIEF           = NO

# The MULTILINE_CPP_IS_BRIEF tag can be set to YES to make Doxygen
# treat a multi-line C++ special comment block (i.e. a block of //! or ///
# comments) as a brief description. This used to be the default behaviour.
# The new default is to treat a multi-line C++ comment block as a detailed
# description. Set this tag to YES if you prefer the old behaviour instead.

MULTILINE_CPP_IS_BRIEF = NO

# If the INHERIT_DOCS tag is set to YES (the default) then an undocumented
# member inherits the documentation from any documented member that it
# re-implements.

INHERIT_DOCS           = YES

# If the SEPARATE_MEMBER_PAGES tag is set to YES, then doxygen will produce
# a new page for each member. If set to NO, the documentation of a member will
# be part of the file/class/namespace that contains it.

SEPARATE_MEMBER_PAGES  = NO

# The TAB_SIZE tag can be used to set the number of spaces in a tab.
# Doxygen uses this value to replace tabs by spaces in code fragments.

TAB_SIZE               = 8

# This tag can be used to specify a number of aliases that acts
# as commands in the documentation. An alias has the form "name=value".
# For example adding "sideeffect=\par Side Effects:\n" will allow you to
# put the command \sideeffect (or @sideeffect) in the documentation, which
# will result in a user-defined paragraph with heading "Side Effects:".
# You can put \n's in the value part of an alias to insert newlines.

ALIASES                =

# This tag can be used to specify a number of word-keyword mappings (TCL only).
# A mapping has the form "name=value". For example adding
# "class=itcl::class" will allow you to use the command class in the
# itcl::class meaning.

TCL_SUBST              =

# Set the OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_FOR_C tag to YES if your project consists of C
# sources only. Doxygen will then generate output that is more tailored for C.
# For instance, some of the names that are used will be different. The list
# of all members will be omitted, etc.

OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_FOR_C  = YES

# Set the OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_JAVA tag to YES if your project consists of Java
# sources only. Doxygen will then generate output that is more tailored for
# Java. For instance, namespaces will be presented as packages, qualified
# scopes will look different, etc.

OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_JAVA   = NO

# Set the OPTIMIZE_FOR_FORTRAN tag to YES if your project consists of Fortran
# sources only. Doxygen will then generate output that is more tailored for
# Fortran.

OPTIMIZE_FOR_FORTRAN   = NO

# Set the OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_VHDL tag to YES if your project consists of VHDL
# sources. Doxygen will then generate output that is tailored for
# VHDL.

OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_VHDL   = NO

# Doxygen selects the parser to use depending on the extension of the files it
# parses. With this tag you can assign which parser to use for a given
# extension. Doxygen has a built-in mapping, but you can override or extend it
# using this tag. The format is ext=language, where ext is a file extension,
# and language is one of the parsers supported by doxygen: IDL, Java,
# Javascript, CSharp, C, C++, D, PHP, Objective-C, Python, Fortran, VHDL, C,
# C++. For instance to make doxygen treat .inc files as Fortran files (default
# is PHP), and .f files as C (default is Fortran), use: inc=Fortran f=C. Note
# that for custom extensions you also need to set FILE_PATTERNS otherwise the
# files are not read by doxygen.

EXTENSION_MAPPING      =

# If MARKDOWN_SUPPORT is enabled (the default) then doxygen pre-processes all
# comments according to the Markdown format, which allows for more readable
# documentation. See http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ for details.
# The output of markdown processing is further processed by doxygen, so you
# can mix doxygen, HTML, and XML commands with Markdown formatting.
# Disable only in case of backward compatibilities issues.

MARKDOWN_SUPPORT       = YES

# When enabled doxygen tries to link words that correspond to documented classes,
# or namespaces to their corresponding documentation. Such a link can be
# prevented in individual cases by by putting a % sign in front of the word or
# globally by setting AUTOLINK_SUPPORT to NO.

AUTOLINK_SUPPORT       = YES

# If you use STL classes (i.e. std::string, std::vector, etc.) but do not want
# to include (a tag file for) the STL sources as input, then you should
# set this tag to YES in order to let doxygen match functions declarations and
# definitions whose arguments contain STL classes (e.g. func(std::string); v.s.
# func(std::string) {}). This also makes the inheritance and collaboration
# diagrams that involve STL classes more complete and accurate.

BUILTIN_STL_SUPPORT    = NO

# If you use Microsoft's C++/CLI language, you should set this option to YES to
# enable parsing support.

CPP_CLI_SUPPORT        = NO

# Set the SIP_SUPPORT tag to YES if your project consists of sip sources only.
# Doxygen will parse them like normal C++ but will assume all classes use public
# instead of private inheritance when no explicit protection keyword is present.

SIP_SUPPORT            = NO

# For Microsoft's IDL there are propget and propput attributes to indicate getter and setter methods for a property. Setting this option to YES (the default) will make doxygen replace the get and set methods by a property in the documentation. This will only work if the methods are indeed getting or setting a simple type. If this is not the case, or you want to show the methods anyway, you should set this option to NO.

IDL_PROPERTY_SUPPORT   = YES

# If member grouping is used in the documentation and the DISTRIBUTE_GROUP_DOC
# tag is set to YES, then doxygen will reuse the documentation of the first
# member in the group (if any) for the other members of the group. By default
# all members of a group must be documented explicitly.

DISTRIBUTE_GROUP_DOC   = NO

# Set the SUBGROUPING tag to YES (the default) to allow class member groups of
# the same type (for instance a group of public functions) to be put as a
# subgroup of that type (e.g. under the Public Functions section). Set it to
# NO to prevent subgrouping. Alternatively, this can be done per class using
# the \nosubgrouping command.

SUBGROUPING            = YES

# When the INLINE_GROUPED_CLASSES tag is set to YES, classes, structs and
# unions are shown inside the group in which they are included (e.g. using
# @ingroup) instead of on a separate page (for HTML and Man pages) or
# section (for LaTeX and RTF).

INLINE_GROUPED_CLASSES = NO

# When the INLINE_SIMPLE_STRUCTS tag is set to YES, structs, classes, and
# unions with only public data fields will be shown inline in the documentation
# of the scope in which they are defined (i.e. file, namespace, or group
# documentation), provided this scope is documented. If set to NO (the default),
# structs, classes, and unions are shown on a separate page (for HTML and Man
# pages) or section (for LaTeX and RTF).

INLINE_SIMPLE_STRUCTS  = NO

# When TYPEDEF_HIDES_STRUCT is enabled, a typedef of a struct, union, or enum
# is documented as struct, union, or enum with the name of the typedef. So
# typedef struct TypeS {} TypeT, will appear in the documentation as a struct
# with name TypeT. When disabled the typedef will appear as a member of a file,
# namespace, or class. And the struct will be named TypeS. This can typically
# be useful for C code in case the coding convention dictates that all compound
# types are typedef'ed and only the typedef is referenced, never the tag name.

TYPEDEF_HIDES_STRUCT   = YES

# The SYMBOL_CACHE_SIZE determines the size of the internal cache use to
# determine which symbols to keep in memory and which to flush to disk.
# When the cache is full, less often used symbols will be written to disk.
# For small to medium size projects (<1000 input files) the default value is
# probably good enough. For larger projects a too small cache size can cause
# doxygen to be busy swapping symbols to and from disk most of the time
# causing a significant performance penalty.
# If the system has enough physical memory increasing the cache will improve the
# performance by keeping more symbols in memory. Note that the value works on
# a logarithmic scale so increasing the size by one will roughly double the
# memory usage. The cache size is given by this formula:
# 2^(16+SYMBOL_CACHE_SIZE). The valid range is 0..9, the default is 0,
# corresponding to a cache size of 2^16 = 65536 symbols.

SYMBOL_CACHE_SIZE      = 0

# Similar to the SYMBOL_CACHE_SIZE the size of the symbol lookup cache can be
# set using LOOKUP_CACHE_SIZE. This cache is used to resolve symbols given
# their name and scope. Since this can be an expensive process and often the
# same symbol appear multiple times in the code, doxygen keeps a cache of
# pre-resolved symbols. If the cache is too small doxygen will become slower.
# If the cache is too large, memory is wasted. The cache size is given by this
# formula: 2^(16+LOOKUP_CACHE_SIZE). The valid range is 0..9, the default is 0,
# corresponding to a cache size of 2^16 = 65536 symbols.

LOOKUP_CACHE_SIZE      = 0

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Build related configuration options
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the EXTRACT_ALL tag is set to YES doxygen will assume all entities in
# documentation are documented, even if no documentation was available.
# Private class members and static file members will be hidden unless
# the EXTRACT_PRIVATE and EXTRACT_STATIC tags are set to YES

EXTRACT_ALL            = YES

# If the EXTRACT_PRIVATE tag is set to YES all private members of a class
# will be included in the documentation.

EXTRACT_PRIVATE        = YES

# If the EXTRACT_PACKAGE tag is set to YES all members with package or internal
# scope will be included in the documentation.

EXTRACT_PACKAGE        = NO

# If the EXTRACT_STATIC tag is set to YES all static members of a file
# will be included in the documentation.

EXTRACT_STATIC         = YES

# If the EXTRACT_LOCAL_CLASSES tag is set to YES classes (and structs)
# defined locally in source files will be included in the documentation.
# If set to NO only classes defined in header files are included.

EXTRACT_LOCAL_CLASSES  = YES

# This flag is only useful for Objective-C code. When set to YES local
# methods, which are defined in the implementation section but not in
# the interface are included in the documentation.
# If set to NO (the default) only methods in the interface are included.

EXTRACT_LOCAL_METHODS  = NO

# If this flag is set to YES, the members of anonymous namespaces will be
# extracted and appear in the documentation as a namespace called
# 'anonymous_namespace{file}', where file will be replaced with the base
# name of the file that contains the anonymous namespace. By default
# anonymous namespaces are hidden.

EXTRACT_ANON_NSPACES   = NO

# If the HIDE_UNDOC_MEMBERS tag is set to YES, Doxygen will hide all
# undocumented members of documented classes, files or namespaces.
# If set to NO (the default) these members will be included in the
# various overviews, but no documentation section is generated.
# This option has no effect if EXTRACT_ALL is enabled.

HIDE_UNDOC_MEMBERS     = NO

# If the HIDE_UNDOC_CLASSES tag is set to YES, Doxygen will hide all
# undocumented classes that are normally visible in the class hierarchy.
# If set to NO (the default) these classes will be included in the various
# overviews. This option has no effect if EXTRACT_ALL is enabled.

HIDE_UNDOC_CLASSES     = NO

# If the HIDE_FRIEND_COMPOUNDS tag is set to YES, Doxygen will hide all
# friend (class|struct|union) declarations.
# If set to NO (the default) these declarations will be included in the
# documentation.

HIDE_FRIEND_COMPOUNDS  = NO

# If the HIDE_IN_BODY_DOCS tag is set to YES, Doxygen will hide any
# documentation blocks found inside the body of a function.
# If set to NO (the default) these blocks will be appended to the
# function's detailed documentation block.

HIDE_IN_BODY_DOCS      = NO

# The INTERNAL_DOCS tag determines if documentation
# that is typed after a \internal command is included. If the tag is set
# to NO (the default) then the documentation will be excluded.
# Set it to YES to include the internal documentation.

INTERNAL_DOCS          = NO

# If the CASE_SENSE_NAMES tag is set to NO then Doxygen will only generate
# file names in lower-case letters. If set to YES upper-case letters are also
# allowed. This is useful if you have classes or files whose names only differ
# in case and if your file system supports case sensitive file names. Windows
# and Mac users are advised to set this option to NO.

CASE_SENSE_NAMES       = YES

# If the HIDE_SCOPE_NAMES tag is set to NO (the default) then Doxygen
# will show members with their full class and namespace scopes in the
# documentation. If set to YES the scope will be hidden.

HIDE_SCOPE_NAMES       = NO

# If the SHOW_INCLUDE_FILES tag is set to YES (the default) then Doxygen
# will put a list of the files that are included by a file in the documentation
# of that file.

SHOW_INCLUDE_FILES     = YES

# If the FORCE_LOCAL_INCLUDES tag is set to YES then Doxygen
# will list include files with double quotes in the documentation
# rather than with sharp brackets.

FORCE_LOCAL_INCLUDES   = NO

# If the INLINE_INFO tag is set to YES (the default) then a tag [inline]
# is inserted in the documentation for inline members.

INLINE_INFO            = YES

# If the SORT_MEMBER_DOCS tag is set to YES (the default) then doxygen
# will sort the (detailed) documentation of file and class members
# alphabetically by member name. If set to NO the members will appear in
# declaration order.

SORT_MEMBER_DOCS       = NO

# If the SORT_BRIEF_DOCS tag is set to YES then doxygen will sort the
# brief documentation of file, namespace and class members alphabetically
# by member name. If set to NO (the default) the members will appear in
# declaration order.

SORT_BRIEF_DOCS        = NO

# If the SORT_MEMBERS_CTORS_1ST tag is set to YES then doxygen
# will sort the (brief and detailed) documentation of class members so that
# constructors and destructors are listed first. If set to NO (the default)
# the constructors will appear in the respective orders defined by
# SORT_MEMBER_DOCS and SORT_BRIEF_DOCS.
# This tag will be ignored for brief docs if SORT_BRIEF_DOCS is set to NO
# and ignored for detailed docs if SORT_MEMBER_DOCS is set to NO.

SORT_MEMBERS_CTORS_1ST = NO

# If the SORT_GROUP_NAMES tag is set to YES then doxygen will sort the
# hierarchy of group names into alphabetical order. If set to NO (the default)
# the group names will appear in their defined order.

SORT_GROUP_NAMES       = NO

# If the SORT_BY_SCOPE_NAME tag is set to YES, the class list will be
# sorted by fully-qualified names, including namespaces. If set to
# NO (the default), the class list will be sorted only by class name,
# not including the namespace part.
# Note: This option is not very useful if HIDE_SCOPE_NAMES is set to YES.
# Note: This option applies only to the class list, not to the
# alphabetical list.

SORT_BY_SCOPE_NAME     = NO

# If the STRICT_PROTO_MATCHING option is enabled and doxygen fails to
# do proper type resolution of all parameters of a function it will reject a
# match between the prototype and the implementation of a member function even
# if there is only one candidate or it is obvious which candidate to choose
# by doing a simple string match. By disabling STRICT_PROTO_MATCHING doxygen
# will still accept a match between prototype and implementation in such cases.

STRICT_PROTO_MATCHING  = NO

# The GENERATE_TODOLIST tag can be used to enable (YES) or
# disable (NO) the todo list. This list is created by putting \todo
# commands in the documentation.

GENERATE_TODOLIST      = YES

# The GENERATE_TESTLIST tag can be used to enable (YES) or
# disable (NO) the test list. This list is created by putting \test
# commands in the documentation.

GENERATE_TESTLIST      = YES

# The GENERATE_BUGLIST tag can be used to enable (YES) or
# disable (NO) the bug list. This list is created by putting \bug
# commands in the documentation.

GENERATE_BUGLIST       = YES

# The GENERATE_DEPRECATEDLIST tag can be used to enable (YES) or
# disable (NO) the deprecated list. This list is created by putting
# \deprecated commands in the documentation.

GENERATE_DEPRECATEDLIST= YES

# The ENABLED_SECTIONS tag can be used to enable conditional
# documentation sections, marked by \if sectionname ... \endif.

ENABLED_SECTIONS       =

# The MAX_INITIALIZER_LINES tag determines the maximum number of lines
# the initial value of a variable or macro consists of for it to appear in
# the documentation. If the initializer consists of more lines than specified
# here it will be hidden. Use a value of 0 to hide initializers completely.
# The appearance of the initializer of individual variables and macros in the
# documentation can be controlled using \showinitializer or \hideinitializer
# command in the documentation regardless of this setting.

MAX_INITIALIZER_LINES  = 30

# Set the SHOW_USED_FILES tag to NO to disable the list of files generated
# at the bottom of the documentation of classes and structs. If set to YES the
# list will mention the files that were used to generate the documentation.

SHOW_USED_FILES        = YES

# Set the SHOW_FILES tag to NO to disable the generation of the Files page.
# This will remove the Files entry from the Quick Index and from the
# Folder Tree View (if specified). The default is YES.

SHOW_FILES             = YES

# Set the SHOW_NAMESPACES tag to NO to disable the generation of the
# Namespaces page.
# This will remove the Namespaces entry from the Quick Index
# and from the Folder Tree View (if specified). The default is YES.

SHOW_NAMESPACES        = YES

# The FILE_VERSION_FILTER tag can be used to specify a program or script that
# doxygen should invoke to get the current version for each file (typically from
# the version control system). Doxygen will invoke the program by executing (via
# popen()) the command <command> <input-file>, where <command> is the value of
# the FILE_VERSION_FILTER tag, and <input-file> is the name of an input file
# provided by doxygen. Whatever the program writes to standard output
# is used as the file version. See the manual for examples.

FILE_VERSION_FILTER    =

# The LAYOUT_FILE tag can be used to specify a layout file which will be parsed
# by doxygen. The layout file controls the global structure of the generated
# output files in an output format independent way. To create the layout file
# that represents doxygen's defaults, run doxygen with the -l option.
# You can optionally specify a file name after the option, if omitted
# DoxygenLayout.xml will be used as the name of the layout file.

LAYOUT_FILE            =

# The CITE_BIB_FILES tag can be used to specify one or more bib files
# containing the references data. This must be a list of .bib files. The
# .bib extension is automatically appended if omitted. Using this command
# requires the bibtex tool to be installed. See also
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX for more info. For LaTeX the style
# of the bibliography can be controlled using LATEX_BIB_STYLE. To use this
# feature you need bibtex and perl available in the search path.

CITE_BIB_FILES         =

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to warning and progress messages
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# The QUIET tag can be used to turn on/off the messages that are generated
# by doxygen. Possible values are YES and NO. If left blank NO is used.

QUIET                  = YES

# The WARNINGS tag can be used to turn on/off the warning messages that are
# generated by doxygen. Possible values are YES and NO. If left blank
# NO is used.

WARNINGS               = YES

# If WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED is set to YES, then doxygen will generate warnings
# for undocumented members. If EXTRACT_ALL is set to YES then this flag will
# automatically be disabled.

WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED   = YES

# If WARN_IF_DOC_ERROR is set to YES, doxygen will generate warnings for
# potential errors in the documentation, such as not documenting some
# parameters in a documented function, or documenting parameters that
# don't exist or using markup commands wrongly.

WARN_IF_DOC_ERROR      = YES

# The WARN_NO_PARAMDOC option can be enabled to get warnings for
# functions that are documented, but have no documentation for their parameters
# or return value. If set to NO (the default) doxygen will only warn about
# wrong or incomplete parameter documentation, but not about the absence of
# documentation.

WARN_NO_PARAMDOC       = NO

# The WARN_FORMAT tag determines the format of the warning messages that
# doxygen can produce. The string should contain the $file, $line, and $text
# tags, which will be replaced by the file and line number from which the
# warning originated and the warning text. Optionally the format may contain
# $version, which will be replaced by the version of the file (if it could
# be obtained via FILE_VERSION_FILTER)

WARN_FORMAT            = "$file:$line: $text"

# The WARN_LOGFILE tag can be used to specify a file to which warning
# and error messages should be written. If left blank the output is written
# to stderr.

WARN_LOGFILE           =

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the input files
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# The INPUT tag can be used to specify the files and/or directories that contain
# documented source files. You may enter file names like "myfile.cpp" or
# directories like "/usr/src/myproject". Separate the files or directories
# with spaces.

INPUT                  =

# This tag can be used to specify the character encoding of the source files
# that doxygen parses. Internally doxygen uses the UTF-8 encoding, which is
# also the default input encoding. Doxygen uses libiconv (or the iconv built
# into libc) for the transcoding. See http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv for
# the list of possible encodings.

INPUT_ENCODING         = UTF-8

# If the value of the INPUT tag contains directories, you can use the
# FILE_PATTERNS tag to specify one or more wildcard pattern (like *.cpp
# and *.h) to filter out the source-files in the directories. If left
# blank the following patterns are tested:
# *.c *.cc *.cxx *.cpp *.c++ *.d *.java *.ii *.ixx *.ipp *.i++ *.inl *.h *.hh
# *.hxx *.hpp *.h++ *.idl *.odl *.cs *.php *.php3 *.inc *.m *.mm *.dox *.py
# *.f90 *.f *.for *.vhd *.vhdl

FILE_PATTERNS          =

# The RECURSIVE tag can be used to turn specify whether or not subdirectories
# should be searched for input files as well. Possible values are YES and NO.
# If left blank NO is used.

RECURSIVE              = YES

# The EXCLUDE tag can be used to specify files and/or directories that should be
# excluded from the INPUT source files. This way you can easily exclude a
# subdirectory from a directory tree whose root is specified with the INPUT tag.
# Note that relative paths are relative to the directory from which doxygen is
# run.

EXCLUDE                = doc/print_options.c

# The EXCLUDE_SYMLINKS tag can be used to select whether or not files or
# directories that are symbolic links (a Unix file system feature) are excluded
# from the input.

EXCLUDE_SYMLINKS       = YES

# If the value of the INPUT tag contains directories, you can use the
# EXCLUDE_PATTERNS tag to specify one or more wildcard patterns to exclude
# certain files from those directories. Note that the wildcards are matched
# against the file with absolute path, so to exclude all test directories
# for example use the pattern */test/*

EXCLUDE_PATTERNS       = *.svn \
                         *.git \
                         *.d

# The EXCLUDE_SYMBOLS tag can be used to specify one or more symbol names
# (namespaces, classes, functions, etc.) that should be excluded from the
# output. The symbol name can be a fully qualified name, a word, or if the
# wildcard * is used, a substring. Examples: ANamespace, AClass,
# AClass::ANamespace, ANamespace::*Test

EXCLUDE_SYMBOLS        =

# The EXAMPLE_PATH tag can be used to specify one or more files or
# directories that contain example code fragments that are included (see
# the \include command).

EXAMPLE_PATH           = doc/examples/ tools/

# If the value of the EXAMPLE_PATH tag contains directories, you can use the
# EXAMPLE_PATTERNS tag to specify one or more wildcard pattern (like *.cpp
# and *.h) to filter out the source-files in the directories. If left
# blank all files are included.

EXAMPLE_PATTERNS       = *.c

# If the EXAMPLE_RECURSIVE tag is set to YES then subdirectories will be
# searched for input files to be used with the \include or \dontinclude
# commands irrespective of the value of the RECURSIVE tag.
# Possible values are YES and NO. If left blank NO is used.

EXAMPLE_RECURSIVE      = NO

# The IMAGE_PATH tag can be used to specify one or more files or
# directories that contain image that are included in the documentation (see
# the \image command).

IMAGE_PATH             =

# The INPUT_FILTER tag can be used to specify a program that doxygen should
# invoke to filter for each input file. Doxygen will invoke the filter program
# by executing (via popen()) the command <filter> <input-file>, where <filter>
# is the value of the INPUT_FILTER tag, and <input-file> is the name of an
# input file. Doxygen will then use the output that the filter program writes
# to standard output.
# If FILTER_PATTERNS is specified, this tag will be
# ignored.

INPUT_FILTER           =

# The FILTER_PATTERNS tag can be used to specify filters on a per file pattern
# basis.
# Doxygen will compare the file name with each pattern and apply the
# filter if there is a match.
# The filters are a list of the form:
# pattern=filter (like *.cpp=my_cpp_filter). See INPUT_FILTER for further
# info on how filters are used. If FILTER_PATTERNS is empty or if
# non of the patterns match the file name, INPUT_FILTER is applied.

FILTER_PATTERNS        =

# If the FILTER_SOURCE_FILES tag is set to YES, the input filter (if set using
# INPUT_FILTER) will be used to filter the input files when producing source
# files to browse (i.e. when SOURCE_BROWSER is set to YES).

FILTER_SOURCE_FILES    = NO

# The FILTER_SOURCE_PATTERNS tag can be used to specify source filters per file
# pattern. A pattern will override the setting for FILTER_PATTERN (if any)
# and it is also possible to disable source filtering for a specific pattern
# using *.ext= (so without naming a filter). This option only has effect when
# FILTER_SOURCE_FILES is enabled.

FILTER_SOURCE_PATTERNS =

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to source browsing
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the SOURCE_BROWSER tag is set to YES then a list of source files will
# be generated. Documented entities will be cross-referenced with these sources.
# Note: To get rid of all source code in the generated output, make sure also
# VERBATIM_HEADERS is set to NO.

SOURCE_BROWSER         = YES

# Setting the INLINE_SOURCES tag to YES will include the body
# of functions and classes directly in the documentation.

INLINE_SOURCES         = NO

# Setting the STRIP_CODE_COMMENTS tag to YES (the default) will instruct
# doxygen to hide any special comment blocks from generated source code
# fragments. Normal C, C++ and Fortran comments will always remain visible.

STRIP_CODE_COMMENTS    = NO

# If the REFERENCED_BY_RELATION tag is set to YES
# then for each documented function all documented
# functions referencing it will be listed.

REFERENCED_BY_RELATION = YES

# If the REFERENCES_RELATION tag is set to YES
# then for each documented function all documented entities
# called/used by that function will be listed.

REFERENCES_RELATION    = NO

# If the REFERENCES_LINK_SOURCE tag is set to YES (the default)
# and SOURCE_BROWSER tag is set to YES, then the hyperlinks from
# functions in REFERENCES_RELATION and REFERENCED_BY_RELATION lists will
# link to the source code.
# Otherwise they will link to the documentation.

REFERENCES_LINK_SOURCE = YES

# If the USE_HTAGS tag is set to YES then the references to source code
# will point to the HTML generated by the htags(1) tool instead of doxygen
# built-in source browser. The htags tool is part of GNU's global source
# tagging system (see http://www.gnu.org/software/global/global.html). You
# will need version 4.8.6 or higher.

USE_HTAGS              = NO

# If the VERBATIM_HEADERS tag is set to YES (the default) then Doxygen
# will generate a verbatim copy of the header file for each class for
# which an include is specified. Set to NO to disable this.

VERBATIM_HEADERS       = YES

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the alphabetical class index
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the ALPHABETICAL_INDEX tag is set to YES, an alphabetical index
# of all compounds will be generated. Enable this if the project
# contains a lot of classes, structs, unions or interfaces.

ALPHABETICAL_INDEX     = YES

# If the alphabetical index is enabled (see ALPHABETICAL_INDEX) then
# the COLS_IN_ALPHA_INDEX tag can be used to specify the number of columns
# in which this list will be split (can be a number in the range [1..20])

COLS_IN_ALPHA_INDEX    = 5

# In case all classes in a project start with a common prefix, all
# classes will be put under the same header in the alphabetical index.
# The IGNORE_PREFIX tag can be used to specify one or more prefixes that
# should be ignored while generating the index headers.

IGNORE_PREFIX          =

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the HTML output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_HTML tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# generate HTML output.

GENERATE_HTML          = YES

# The HTML_OUTPUT tag is used to specify where the HTML docs will be put.
# If a relative path is entered the value of OUTPUT_DIRECTORY will be
# put in front of it. If left blank `html' will be used as the default path.

HTML_OUTPUT            = html

# The HTML_FILE_EXTENSION tag can be used to specify the file extension for
# each generated HTML page (for example: .htm,.php,.asp). If it is left blank
# doxygen will generate files with .html extension.

HTML_FILE_EXTENSION    = .html

# The HTML_HEADER tag can be used to specify a personal HTML header for
# each generated HTML page. If it is left blank doxygen will generate a
# standard header. Note that when using a custom header you are responsible
#  for the proper inclusion of any scripts and style sheets that doxygen
# needs, which is dependent on the configuration options used.
# It is advised to generate a default header using "doxygen -w html
# header.html footer.html stylesheet.css YourConfigFile" and then modify
# that header. Note that the header is subject to change so you typically
# have to redo this when upgrading to a newer version of doxygen or when
# changing the value of configuration settings such as GENERATE_TREEVIEW!

HTML_HEADER            =

# The HTML_FOOTER tag can be used to specify a personal HTML footer for
# each generated HTML page. If it is left blank doxygen will generate a
# standard footer.

HTML_FOOTER            =

# The HTML_STYLESHEET tag can be used to specify a user-defined cascading
# style sheet that is used by each HTML page. It can be used to
# fine-tune the look of the HTML output. If left blank doxygen will
# generate a default style sheet. Note that it is recommended to use
# HTML_EXTRA_STYLESHEET instead of this one, as it is more robust and this
# tag will in the future become obsolete.

HTML_STYLESHEET        =

# The HTML_EXTRA_STYLESHEET tag can be used to specify an additional
# user-defined cascading style sheet that is included after the standard
# style sheets created by doxygen. Using this option one can overrule
# certain style aspects. This is preferred over using HTML_STYLESHEET
# since it does not replace the standard style sheet and is therefor more
# robust against future updates. Doxygen will copy the style sheet file to
# the output directory.

HTML_EXTRA_STYLESHEET  =

# The HTML_EXTRA_FILES tag can be used to specify one or more extra images or
# other source files which should be copied to the HTML output directory. Note
# that these files will be copied to the base HTML output directory. Use the
# $relpath$ marker in the HTML_HEADER and/or HTML_FOOTER files to load these
# files. In the HTML_STYLESHEET file, use the file name only. Also note that
# the files will be copied as-is; there are no commands or markers available.

HTML_EXTRA_FILES       =

# The HTML_COLORSTYLE_HUE tag controls the color of the HTML output.
# Doxygen will adjust the colors in the style sheet and background images
# according to this color. Hue is specified as an angle on a colorwheel,
# see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue for more information.
# For instance the value 0 represents red, 60 is yellow, 120 is green,
# 180 is cyan, 240 is blue, 300 purple, and 360 is red again.
# The allowed range is 0 to 359.

HTML_COLORSTYLE_HUE    = 220

# The HTML_COLORSTYLE_SAT tag controls the purity (or saturation) of
# the colors in the HTML output. For a value of 0 the output will use
# grayscales only. A value of 255 will produce the most vivid colors.

HTML_COLORSTYLE_SAT    = 100

# The HTML_COLORSTYLE_GAMMA tag controls the gamma correction applied to
# the luminance component of the colors in the HTML output. Values below
# 100 gradually make the output lighter, whereas values above 100 make
# the output darker. The value divided by 100 is the actual gamma applied,
# so 80 represents a gamma of 0.8, The value 220 represents a gamma of 2.2,
# and 100 does not change the gamma.

HTML_COLORSTYLE_GAMMA  = 80

# If the HTML_TIMESTAMP tag is set to YES then the footer of each generated HTML
# page will contain the date and time when the page was generated. Setting
# this to NO can help when comparing the output of multiple runs.

HTML_TIMESTAMP         = YES

# If the HTML_DYNAMIC_SECTIONS tag is set to YES then the generated HTML
# documentation will contain sections that can be hidden and shown after the
# page has loaded.

HTML_DYNAMIC_SECTIONS  = NO

# With HTML_INDEX_NUM_ENTRIES one can control the preferred number of
# entries shown in the various tree structured indices initially; the user
# can expand and collapse entries dynamically later on. Doxygen will expand
# the tree to such a level that at most the specified number of entries are
# visible (unless a fully collapsed tree already exceeds this amount).
# So setting the number of entries 1 will produce a full collapsed tree by
# default. 0 is a special value representing an infinite number of entries
# and will result in a full expanded tree by default.

HTML_INDEX_NUM_ENTRIES = 100

# If the GENERATE_DOCSET tag is set to YES, additional index files
# will be generated that can be used as input for Apple's Xcode 3
# integrated development environment, introduced with OSX 10.5 (Leopard).
# To create a documentation set, doxygen will generate a Makefile in the
# HTML output directory. Running make will produce the docset in that
# directory and running "make install" will install the docset in
# ~/Library/Developer/Shared/Documentation/DocSets so that Xcode will find
# it at startup.
# See http://developer.apple.com/tools/creatingdocsetswithdoxygen.html
# for more information.

GENERATE_DOCSET        = NO

# When GENERATE_DOCSET tag is set to YES, this tag determines the name of the
# feed. A documentation feed provides an umbrella under which multiple
# documentation sets from a single provider (such as a company or product suite)
# can be grouped.

DOCSET_FEEDNAME        = "Doxygen generated docs"

# When GENERATE_DOCSET tag is set to YES, this tag specifies a string that
# should uniquely identify the documentation set bundle. This should be a
# reverse domain-name style string, e.g. com.mycompany.MyDocSet. Doxygen
# will append .docset to the name.

DOCSET_BUNDLE_ID       = org.doxygen.Project

# When GENERATE_PUBLISHER_ID tag specifies a string that should uniquely
# identify the documentation publisher. This should be a reverse domain-name
# style string, e.g. com.mycompany.MyDocSet.documentation.

DOCSET_PUBLISHER_ID    = org.doxygen.Publisher

# The GENERATE_PUBLISHER_NAME tag identifies the documentation publisher.

DOCSET_PUBLISHER_NAME  = Publisher

# If the GENERATE_HTMLHELP tag is set to YES, additional index files
# will be generated that can be used as input for tools like the
# Microsoft HTML help workshop to generate a compiled HTML help file (.chm)
# of the generated HTML documentation.

GENERATE_HTMLHELP      = NO

# If the GENERATE_HTMLHELP tag is set to YES, the CHM_FILE tag can
# be used to specify the file name of the resulting .chm file. You
# can add a path in front of the file if the result should not be
# written to the html output directory.

CHM_FILE               =

# If the GENERATE_HTMLHELP tag is set to YES, the HHC_LOCATION tag can
# be used to specify the location (absolute path including file name) of
# the HTML help compiler (hhc.exe). If non-empty doxygen will try to run
# the HTML help compiler on the generated index.hhp.

HHC_LOCATION           =

# If the GENERATE_HTMLHELP tag is set to YES, the GENERATE_CHI flag
# controls if a separate .chi index file is generated (YES) or that
# it should be included in the master .chm file (NO).

GENERATE_CHI           = NO

# If the GENERATE_HTMLHELP tag is set to YES, the CHM_INDEX_ENCODING
# is used to encode HtmlHelp index (hhk), content (hhc) and project file
# content.

CHM_INDEX_ENCODING     =

# If the GENERATE_HTMLHELP tag is set to YES, the BINARY_TOC flag
# controls whether a binary table of contents is generated (YES) or a
# normal table of contents (NO) in the .chm file.

BINARY_TOC             = NO

# The TOC_EXPAND flag can be set to YES to add extra items for group members
# to the contents of the HTML help documentation and to the tree view.

TOC_EXPAND             = NO

# If the GENERATE_QHP tag is set to YES and both QHP_NAMESPACE and
# QHP_VIRTUAL_FOLDER are set, an additional index file will be generated
# that can be used as input for Qt's qhelpgenerator to generate a
# Qt Compressed Help (.qch) of the generated HTML documentation.

GENERATE_QHP           = NO

# If the QHG_LOCATION tag is specified, the QCH_FILE tag can
# be used to specify the file name of the resulting .qch file.
# The path specified is relative to the HTML output folder.

QCH_FILE               =

# The QHP_NAMESPACE tag specifies the namespace to use when generating
# Qt Help Project output. For more information please see
# http://doc.trolltech.com/qthelpproject.html#namespace

QHP_NAMESPACE          = org.doxygen.Project

# The QHP_VIRTUAL_FOLDER tag specifies the namespace to use when generating
# Qt Help Project output. For more information please see
# http://doc.trolltech.com/qthelpproject.html#virtual-folders

QHP_VIRTUAL_FOLDER     = doc

# If QHP_CUST_FILTER_NAME is set, it specifies the name of a custom filter to
# add. For more information please see
# http://doc.trolltech.com/qthelpproject.html#custom-filters

QHP_CUST_FILTER_NAME   =

# The QHP_CUST_FILT_ATTRS tag specifies the list of the attributes of the
# custom filter to add. For more information please see
# <a href="http://doc.trolltech.com/qthelpproject.html#custom-filters">
# Qt Help Project / Custom Filters</a>.

QHP_CUST_FILTER_ATTRS  =

# The QHP_SECT_FILTER_ATTRS tag specifies the list of the attributes this
# project's
# filter section matches.
# <a href="http://doc.trolltech.com/qthelpproject.html#filter-attributes">
# Qt Help Project / Filter Attributes</a>.

QHP_SECT_FILTER_ATTRS  =

# If the GENERATE_QHP tag is set to YES, the QHG_LOCATION tag can
# be used to specify the location of Qt's qhelpgenerator.
# If non-empty doxygen will try to run qhelpgenerator on the generated
# .qhp file.

QHG_LOCATION           =

# If the GENERATE_ECLIPSEHELP tag is set to YES, additional index files
#  will be generated, which together with the HTML files, form an Eclipse help
# plugin. To install this plugin and make it available under the help contents
# menu in Eclipse, the contents of the directory containing the HTML and XML
# files needs to be copied into the plugins directory of eclipse. The name of
# the directory within the plugins directory should be the same as
# the ECLIPSE_DOC_ID value. After copying Eclipse needs to be restarted before
# the help appears.

GENERATE_ECLIPSEHELP   = NO

# A unique identifier for the eclipse help plugin. When installing the plugin
# the directory name containing the HTML and XML files should also have
# this name.

ECLIPSE_DOC_ID         = org.doxygen.Project

# The DISABLE_INDEX tag can be used to turn on/off the condensed index (tabs)
# at top of each HTML page. The value NO (the default) enables the index and
# the value YES disables it. Since the tabs have the same information as the
# navigation tree you can set this option to NO if you already set
# GENERATE_TREEVIEW to YES.

DISABLE_INDEX          = NO

# The GENERATE_TREEVIEW tag is used to specify whether a tree-like index
# structure should be generated to display hierarchical information.
# If the tag value is set to YES, a side panel will be generated
# containing a tree-like index structure (just like the one that
# is generated for HTML Help). For this to work a browser that supports
# JavaScript, DHTML, CSS and frames is required (i.e. any modern browser).
# Windows users are probably better off using the HTML help feature.
# Since the tree basically has the same information as the tab index you
# could consider to set DISABLE_INDEX to NO when enabling this option.

GENERATE_TREEVIEW      = NO

# The ENUM_VALUES_PER_LINE tag can be used to set the number of enum values
# (range [0,1..20]) that doxygen will group on one line in the generated HTML
# documentation. Note that a value of 0 will completely suppress the enum
# values from appearing in the overview section.

ENUM_VALUES_PER_LINE   = 4

# If the treeview is enabled (see GENERATE_TREEVIEW) then this tag can be
# used to set the initial width (in pixels) of the frame in which the tree
# is shown.

TREEVIEW_WIDTH         = 250

# When the EXT_LINKS_IN_WINDOW option is set to YES doxygen will open
# links to external symbols imported via tag files in a separate window.

EXT_LINKS_IN_WINDOW    = NO

# Use this tag to change the font size of Latex formulas included
# as images in the HTML documentation. The default is 10. Note that
# when you change the font size after a successful doxygen run you need
# to manually remove any form_*.png images from the HTML output directory
# to force them to be regenerated.

FORMULA_FONTSIZE       = 10

# Use the FORMULA_TRANPARENT tag to determine whether or not the images
# generated for formulas are transparent PNGs. Transparent PNGs are
# not supported properly for IE 6.0, but are supported on all modern browsers.
# Note that when changing this option you need to delete any form_*.png files
# in the HTML output before the changes have effect.

FORMULA_TRANSPARENT    = YES

# Enable the USE_MATHJAX option to render LaTeX formulas using MathJax
# (see http://www.mathjax.org) which uses client side Javascript for the
# rendering instead of using prerendered bitmaps. Use this if you do not
# have LaTeX installed or if you want to formulas look prettier in the HTML
# output. When enabled you may also need to install MathJax separately and
# configure the path to it using the MATHJAX_RELPATH option.

USE_MATHJAX            = NO

# When MathJax is enabled you need to specify the location relative to the
# HTML output directory using the MATHJAX_RELPATH option. The destination
# directory should contain the MathJax.js script. For instance, if the mathjax
# directory is located at the same level as the HTML output directory, then
# MATHJAX_RELPATH should be ../mathjax. The default value points to
# the MathJax Content Delivery Network so you can quickly see the result without
# installing MathJax.
# However, it is strongly recommended to install a local
# copy of MathJax from http://www.mathjax.org before deployment.

MATHJAX_RELPATH        = http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest

# The MATHJAX_EXTENSIONS tag can be used to specify one or MathJax extension
# names that should be enabled during MathJax rendering.

MATHJAX_EXTENSIONS     =

# When the SEARCHENGINE tag is enabled doxygen will generate a search box
# for the HTML output. The underlying search engine uses javascript
# and DHTML and should work on any modern browser. Note that when using
# HTML help (GENERATE_HTMLHELP), Qt help (GENERATE_QHP), or docsets
# (GENERATE_DOCSET) there is already a search function so this one should
# typically be disabled. For large projects the javascript based search engine
# can be slow, then enabling SERVER_BASED_SEARCH may provide a better solution.

SEARCHENGINE           = YES

# When the SERVER_BASED_SEARCH tag is enabled the search engine will be
# implemented using a PHP enabled web server instead of at the web client
# using Javascript. Doxygen will generate the search PHP script and index
# file to put on the web server. The advantage of the server
# based approach is that it scales better to large projects and allows
# full text search. The disadvantages are that it is more difficult to setup
# and does not have live searching capabilities.

SERVER_BASED_SEARCH    = NO

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the LaTeX output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_LATEX tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# generate Latex output.

GENERATE_LATEX         = NO

# The LATEX_OUTPUT tag is used to specify where the LaTeX docs will be put.
# If a relative path is entered the value of OUTPUT_DIRECTORY will be
# put in front of it. If left blank `latex' will be used as the default path.

LATEX_OUTPUT           = latex

# The LATEX_CMD_NAME tag can be used to specify the LaTeX command name to be
# invoked. If left blank `latex' will be used as the default command name.
# Note that when enabling USE_PDFLATEX this option is only used for
# generating bitmaps for formulas in the HTML output, but not in the
# Makefile that is written to the output directory.

LATEX_CMD_NAME         = latex

# The MAKEINDEX_CMD_NAME tag can be used to specify the command name to
# generate index for LaTeX. If left blank `makeindex' will be used as the
# default command name.

MAKEINDEX_CMD_NAME     = makeindex

# If the COMPACT_LATEX tag is set to YES Doxygen generates more compact
# LaTeX documents. This may be useful for small projects and may help to
# save some trees in general.

COMPACT_LATEX          = NO

# The PAPER_TYPE tag can be used to set the paper type that is used
# by the printer. Possible values are: a4, letter, legal and
# executive. If left blank a4wide will be used.

PAPER_TYPE             = a4wide

# The EXTRA_PACKAGES tag can be to specify one or more names of LaTeX
# packages that should be included in the LaTeX output.

EXTRA_PACKAGES         =

# The LATEX_HEADER tag can be used to specify a personal LaTeX header for
# the generated latex document. The header should contain everything until
# the first chapter. If it is left blank doxygen will generate a
# standard header. Notice: only use this tag if you know what you are doing!

LATEX_HEADER           =

# The LATEX_FOOTER tag can be used to specify a personal LaTeX footer for
# the generated latex document. The footer should contain everything after
# the last chapter. If it is left blank doxygen will generate a
# standard footer. Notice: only use this tag if you know what you are doing!

LATEX_FOOTER           =

# If the PDF_HYPERLINKS tag is set to YES, the LaTeX that is generated
# is prepared for conversion to pdf (using ps2pdf). The pdf file will
# contain links (just like the HTML output) instead of page references
# This makes the output suitable for online browsing using a pdf viewer.

PDF_HYPERLINKS         = NO

# If the USE_PDFLATEX tag is set to YES, pdflatex will be used instead of
# plain latex in the generated Makefile. Set this option to YES to get a
# higher quality PDF documentation.

USE_PDFLATEX           = NO

# If the LATEX_BATCHMODE tag is set to YES, doxygen will add the \\batchmode.
# command to the generated LaTeX files. This will instruct LaTeX to keep
# running if errors occur, instead of asking the user for help.
# This option is also used when generating formulas in HTML.

LATEX_BATCHMODE        = NO

# If LATEX_HIDE_INDICES is set to YES then doxygen will not
# include the index chapters (such as File Index, Compound Index, etc.)
# in the output.

LATEX_HIDE_INDICES     = NO

# If LATEX_SOURCE_CODE is set to YES then doxygen will include
# source code with syntax highlighting in the LaTeX output.
# Note that which sources are shown also depends on other settings
# such as SOURCE_BROWSER.

LATEX_SOURCE_CODE      = NO

# The LATEX_BIB_STYLE tag can be used to specify the style to use for the
# bibliography, e.g. plainnat, or ieeetr. The default style is "plain". See
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX for more info.

LATEX_BIB_STYLE        = plain

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the RTF output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_RTF tag is set to YES Doxygen will generate RTF output
# The RTF output is optimized for Word 97 and may not look very pretty with
# other RTF readers or editors.

GENERATE_RTF           = NO

# The RTF_OUTPUT tag is used to specify where the RTF docs will be put.
# If a relative path is entered the value of OUTPUT_DIRECTORY will be
# put in front of it. If left blank `rtf' will be used as the default path.

RTF_OUTPUT             = rtf

# If the COMPACT_RTF tag is set to YES Doxygen generates more compact
# RTF documents. This may be useful for small projects and may help to
# save some trees in general.

COMPACT_RTF            = NO

# If the RTF_HYPERLINKS tag is set to YES, the RTF that is generated
# will contain hyperlink fields. The RTF file will
# contain links (just like the HTML output) instead of page references.
# This makes the output suitable for online browsing using WORD or other
# programs which support those fields.
# Note: wordpad (write) and others do not support links.

RTF_HYPERLINKS         = NO

# Load style sheet definitions from file. Syntax is similar to doxygen's
# config file, i.e. a series of assignments. You only have to provide
# replacements, missing definitions are set to their default value.

RTF_STYLESHEET_FILE    =

# Set optional variables used in the generation of an rtf document.
# Syntax is similar to doxygen's config file.

RTF_EXTENSIONS_FILE    =

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the man page output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_MAN tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# generate man pages

GENERATE_MAN           = NO

# The MAN_OUTPUT tag is used to specify where the man pages will be put.
# If a relative path is entered the value of OUTPUT_DIRECTORY will be
# put in front of it. If left blank `man' will be used as the default path.

MAN_OUTPUT             = man

# The MAN_EXTENSION tag determines the extension that is added to
# the generated man pages (default is the subroutine's section .3)

MAN_EXTENSION          = .3

# If the MAN_LINKS tag is set to YES and Doxygen generates man output,
# then it will generate one additional man file for each entity
# documented in the real man page(s). These additional files
# only source the real man page, but without them the man command
# would be unable to find the correct page. The default is NO.

MAN_LINKS              = NO

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the XML output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_XML tag is set to YES Doxygen will
# generate an XML file that captures the structure of
# the code including all documentation.

GENERATE_XML           = NO

# The XML_OUTPUT tag is used to specify where the XML pages will be put.
# If a relative path is entered the value of OUTPUT_DIRECTORY will be
# put in front of it. If left blank `xml' will be used as the default path.

XML_OUTPUT             = xml

# The XML_SCHEMA tag can be used to specify an XML schema,
# which can be used by a validating XML parser to check the
# syntax of the XML files.

XML_SCHEMA             =

# The XML_DTD tag can be used to specify an XML DTD,
# which can be used by a validating XML parser to check the
# syntax of the XML files.

XML_DTD                =

# If the XML_PROGRAMLISTING tag is set to YES Doxygen will
# dump the program listings (including syntax highlighting
# and cross-referencing information) to the XML output. Note that
# enabling this will significantly increase the size of the XML output.

XML_PROGRAMLISTING     = YES

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options for the AutoGen Definitions output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_AUTOGEN_DEF tag is set to YES Doxygen will
# generate an AutoGen Definitions (see autogen.sf.net) file
# that captures the structure of the code including all
# documentation. Note that this feature is still experimental
# and incomplete at the moment.

GENERATE_AUTOGEN_DEF   = NO

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# configuration options related to the Perl module output
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the GENERATE_PERLMOD tag is set to YES Doxygen will
# generate a Perl module file that captures the structure of
# the code including all documentation. Note that this
# feature is still experimental and incomplete at the
# moment.

GENERATE_PERLMOD       = NO

# If the PERLMOD_LATEX tag is set to YES Doxygen will generate
# the necessary Makefile rules, Perl scripts and LaTeX code to be able
# to generate PDF and DVI output from the Perl module output.

PERLMOD_LATEX          = NO

# If the PERLMOD_PRETTY tag is set to YES the Perl module output will be
# nicely formatted so it can be parsed by a human reader.
# This is useful
# if you want to understand what is going on.
# On the other hand, if this
# tag is set to NO the size of the Perl module output will be much smaller
# and Perl will parse it just the same.

PERLMOD_PRETTY         = YES

# The names of the make variables in the generated doxyrules.make file
# are prefixed with the string contained in PERLMOD_MAKEVAR_PREFIX.
# This is useful so different doxyrules.make files included by the same
# Makefile don't overwrite each other's variables.

PERLMOD_MAKEVAR_PREFIX =

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Configuration options related to the preprocessor
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the ENABLE_PREPROCESSING tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# evaluate all C-preprocessor directives found in the sources and include
# files.

ENABLE_PREPROCESSING   = YES

# If the MACRO_EXPANSION tag is set to YES Doxygen will expand all macro
# names in the source code. If set to NO (the default) only conditional
# compilation will be performed. Macro expansion can be done in a controlled
# way by setting EXPAND_ONLY_PREDEF to YES.

MACRO_EXPANSION        = YES

# If the EXPAND_ONLY_PREDEF and MACRO_EXPANSION tags are both set to YES
# then the macro expansion is limited to the macros specified with the
# PREDEFINED and EXPAND_AS_DEFINED tags.

EXPAND_ONLY_PREDEF     = YES

# If the SEARCH_INCLUDES tag is set to YES (the default) the includes files
# pointed to by INCLUDE_PATH will be searched when a #include is found.

SEARCH_INCLUDES        = YES

# The INCLUDE_PATH tag can be used to specify one or more directories that
# contain include files that are not input files but should be processed by
# the preprocessor.

INCLUDE_PATH           =

# You can use the INCLUDE_FILE_PATTERNS tag to specify one or more wildcard
# patterns (like *.h and *.hpp) to filter out the header-files in the
# directories. If left blank, the patterns specified with FILE_PATTERNS will
# be used.

INCLUDE_FILE_PATTERNS  =

# The PREDEFINED tag can be used to specify one or more macro names that
# are defined before the preprocessor is started (similar to the -D option of
# gcc). The argument of the tag is a list of macros of the form: name
# or name=definition (no spaces). If the definition and the = are
# omitted =1 is assumed. To prevent a macro definition from being
# undefined via #undef or recursively expanded use the := operator
# instead of the = operator.

PREDEFINED             = "__attribute__(x)=" \
                         "RENAME(x)=x ## _TMPL" \
                         "DEF(x)=x ## _TMPL" \
                         HAVE_AV_CONFIG_H \
                         HAVE_MMX \
                         HAVE_MMXEXT \
                         HAVE_AMD3DNOW \
                         "DECLARE_ALIGNED(a,t,n)=t n" \
                         "offsetof(x,y)=0x42" \
                         av_alloc_size \
                         AV_GCC_VERSION_AT_LEAST(x,y)=1 \
                         __GNUC__=1 \

# If the MACRO_EXPANSION and EXPAND_ONLY_PREDEF tags are set to YES then
# this tag can be used to specify a list of macro names that should be expanded.
# The macro definition that is found in the sources will be used.
# Use the PREDEFINED tag if you want to use a different macro definition that
# overrules the definition found in the source code.

EXPAND_AS_DEFINED      = declare_idct \
                         READ_PAR_DATA

# If the SKIP_FUNCTION_MACROS tag is set to YES (the default) then
# doxygen's preprocessor will remove all references to function-like macros
# that are alone on a line, have an all uppercase name, and do not end with a
# semicolon, because these will confuse the parser if not removed.

SKIP_FUNCTION_MACROS   = YES

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Configuration::additions related to external references
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# The TAGFILES option can be used to specify one or more tagfiles. For each
# tag file the location of the external documentation should be added. The
# format of a tag file without this location is as follows:
#
# TAGFILES = file1 file2 ...
# Adding location for the tag files is done as follows:
#
# TAGFILES = file1=loc1 "file2 = loc2" ...
# where "loc1" and "loc2" can be relative or absolute paths
# or URLs. Note that each tag file must have a unique name (where the name does
# NOT include the path). If a tag file is not located in the directory in which
# doxygen is run, you must also specify the path to the tagfile here.

TAGFILES               =

# When a file name is specified after GENERATE_TAGFILE, doxygen will create
# a tag file that is based on the input files it reads.

GENERATE_TAGFILE       =

# If the ALLEXTERNALS tag is set to YES all external classes will be listed
# in the class index. If set to NO only the inherited external classes
# will be listed.

ALLEXTERNALS           = NO

# If the EXTERNAL_GROUPS tag is set to YES all external groups will be listed
# in the modules index. If set to NO, only the current project's groups will
# be listed.

EXTERNAL_GROUPS        = YES

# The PERL_PATH should be the absolute path and name of the perl script
# interpreter (i.e. the result of `which perl').

PERL_PATH              = /usr/bin/perl

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Configuration options related to the dot tool
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# If the CLASS_DIAGRAMS tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# generate a inheritance diagram (in HTML, RTF and LaTeX) for classes with base
# or super classes. Setting the tag to NO turns the diagrams off. Note that
# this option also works with HAVE_DOT disabled, but it is recommended to
# install and use dot, since it yields more powerful graphs.

CLASS_DIAGRAMS         = YES

# You can define message sequence charts within doxygen comments using the \msc
# command. Doxygen will then run the mscgen tool (see
# http://www.mcternan.me.uk/mscgen/) to produce the chart and insert it in the
# documentation. The MSCGEN_PATH tag allows you to specify the directory where
# the mscgen tool resides. If left empty the tool is assumed to be found in the
# default search path.

MSCGEN_PATH            =

# If set to YES, the inheritance and collaboration graphs will hide
# inheritance and usage relations if the target is undocumented
# or is not a class.

HIDE_UNDOC_RELATIONS   = YES

# If you set the HAVE_DOT tag to YES then doxygen will assume the dot tool is
# available from the path. This tool is part of Graphviz, a graph visualization
# toolkit from AT&T and Lucent Bell Labs. The other options in this section
# have no effect if this option is set to NO (the default)

HAVE_DOT               = NO

# The DOT_NUM_THREADS specifies the number of dot invocations doxygen is
# allowed to run in parallel. When set to 0 (the default) doxygen will
# base this on the number of processors available in the system. You can set it
# explicitly to a value larger than 0 to get control over the balance
# between CPU load and processing speed.

DOT_NUM_THREADS        = 0

# By default doxygen will use the Helvetica font for all dot files that
# doxygen generates. When you want a differently looking font you can specify
# the font name using DOT_FONTNAME. You need to make sure dot is able to find
# the font, which can be done by putting it in a standard location or by setting
# the DOTFONTPATH environment variable or by setting DOT_FONTPATH to the
# directory containing the font.

DOT_FONTNAME           = FreeSans

# The DOT_FONTSIZE tag can be used to set the size of the font of dot graphs.
# The default size is 10pt.

DOT_FONTSIZE           = 10

# By default doxygen will tell dot to use the Helvetica font.
# If you specify a different font using DOT_FONTNAME you can use DOT_FONTPATH to
# set the path where dot can find it.

DOT_FONTPATH           =

# If the CLASS_GRAPH and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then doxygen
# will generate a graph for each documented class showing the direct and
# indirect inheritance relations. Setting this tag to YES will force the
# CLASS_DIAGRAMS tag to NO.

CLASS_GRAPH            = YES

# If the COLLABORATION_GRAPH and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then doxygen
# will generate a graph for each documented class showing the direct and
# indirect implementation dependencies (inheritance, containment, and
# class references variables) of the class with other documented classes.

COLLABORATION_GRAPH    = YES

# If the GROUP_GRAPHS and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then doxygen
# will generate a graph for groups, showing the direct groups dependencies

GROUP_GRAPHS           = YES

# If the UML_LOOK tag is set to YES doxygen will generate inheritance and
# collaboration diagrams in a style similar to the OMG's Unified Modeling
# Language.

UML_LOOK               = NO

# If the UML_LOOK tag is enabled, the fields and methods are shown inside
# the class node. If there are many fields or methods and many nodes the
# graph may become too big to be useful. The UML_LIMIT_NUM_FIELDS
# threshold limits the number of items for each type to make the size more
# managable. Set this to 0 for no limit. Note that the threshold may be
# exceeded by 50% before the limit is enforced.

UML_LIMIT_NUM_FIELDS   = 10

# If set to YES, the inheritance and collaboration graphs will show the
# relations between templates and their instances.

TEMPLATE_RELATIONS     = YES

# If the ENABLE_PREPROCESSING, SEARCH_INCLUDES, INCLUDE_GRAPH, and HAVE_DOT
# tags are set to YES then doxygen will generate a graph for each documented
# file showing the direct and indirect include dependencies of the file with
# other documented files.

INCLUDE_GRAPH          = YES

# If the ENABLE_PREPROCESSING, SEARCH_INCLUDES, INCLUDED_BY_GRAPH, and
# HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then doxygen will generate a graph for each
# documented header file showing the documented files that directly or
# indirectly include this file.

INCLUDED_BY_GRAPH      = YES

# If the CALL_GRAPH and HAVE_DOT options are set to YES then
# doxygen will generate a call dependency graph for every global function
# or class method. Note that enabling this option will significantly increase
# the time of a run. So in most cases it will be better to enable call graphs
# for selected functions only using the \callgraph command.

CALL_GRAPH             = NO

# If the CALLER_GRAPH and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then
# doxygen will generate a caller dependency graph for every global function
# or class method. Note that enabling this option will significantly increase
# the time of a run. So in most cases it will be better to enable caller
# graphs for selected functions only using the \callergraph command.

CALLER_GRAPH           = NO

# If the GRAPHICAL_HIERARCHY and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then doxygen
# will generate a graphical hierarchy of all classes instead of a textual one.

GRAPHICAL_HIERARCHY    = YES

# If the DIRECTORY_GRAPH and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES
# then doxygen will show the dependencies a directory has on other directories
# in a graphical way. The dependency relations are determined by the #include
# relations between the files in the directories.

DIRECTORY_GRAPH        = YES

# The DOT_IMAGE_FORMAT tag can be used to set the image format of the images
# generated by dot. Possible values are svg, png, jpg, or gif.
# If left blank png will be used. If you choose svg you need to set
# HTML_FILE_EXTENSION to xhtml in order to make the SVG files
# visible in IE 9+ (other browsers do not have this requirement).

DOT_IMAGE_FORMAT       = png

# If DOT_IMAGE_FORMAT is set to svg, then this option can be set to YES to
# enable generation of interactive SVG images that allow zooming and panning.
# Note that this requires a modern browser other than Internet Explorer.
# Tested and working are Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. For IE 9+ you
# need to set HTML_FILE_EXTENSION to xhtml in order to make the SVG files
# visible. Older versions of IE do not have SVG support.

INTERACTIVE_SVG        = NO

# The tag DOT_PATH can be used to specify the path where the dot tool can be
# found. If left blank, it is assumed the dot tool can be found in the path.

DOT_PATH               =

# The DOTFILE_DIRS tag can be used to specify one or more directories that
# contain dot files that are included in the documentation (see the
# \dotfile command).

DOTFILE_DIRS           =

# The MSCFILE_DIRS tag can be used to specify one or more directories that
# contain msc files that are included in the documentation (see the
# \mscfile command).

MSCFILE_DIRS           =

# The DOT_GRAPH_MAX_NODES tag can be used to set the maximum number of
# nodes that will be shown in the graph. If the number of nodes in a graph
# becomes larger than this value, doxygen will truncate the graph, which is
# visualized by representing a node as a red box. Note that doxygen if the
# number of direct children of the root node in a graph is already larger than
# DOT_GRAPH_MAX_NODES then the graph will not be shown at all. Also note
# that the size of a graph can be further restricted by MAX_DOT_GRAPH_DEPTH.

DOT_GRAPH_MAX_NODES    = 50

# The MAX_DOT_GRAPH_DEPTH tag can be used to set the maximum depth of the
# graphs generated by dot. A depth value of 3 means that only nodes reachable
# from the root by following a path via at most 3 edges will be shown. Nodes
# that lay further from the root node will be omitted. Note that setting this
# option to 1 or 2 may greatly reduce the computation time needed for large
# code bases. Also note that the size of a graph can be further restricted by
# DOT_GRAPH_MAX_NODES. Using a depth of 0 means no depth restriction.

MAX_DOT_GRAPH_DEPTH    = 0

# Set the DOT_TRANSPARENT tag to YES to generate images with a transparent
# background. This is disabled by default, because dot on Windows does not
# seem to support this out of the box. Warning: Depending on the platform used,
# enabling this option may lead to badly anti-aliased labels on the edges of
# a graph (i.e. they become hard to read).

DOT_TRANSPARENT        = YES

# Set the DOT_MULTI_TARGETS tag to YES allow dot to generate multiple output
# files in one run (i.e. multiple -o and -T options on the command line). This
# makes dot run faster, but since only newer versions of dot (>1.8.10)
# support this, this feature is disabled by default.

DOT_MULTI_TARGETS      = NO

# If the GENERATE_LEGEND tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# generate a legend page explaining the meaning of the various boxes and
# arrows in the dot generated graphs.

GENERATE_LEGEND        = YES

# If the DOT_CLEANUP tag is set to YES (the default) Doxygen will
# remove the intermediate dot files that are used to generate
# the various graphs.

DOT_CLEANUP            = YES

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Aidan]

The best option is to figure stuff out.

I don't see positive stuff in this mailing list - I lurk a lot in these
emails.

I see what you mean. I somewhat disagree/agree. New codecs or new formats
is innovative to a certain extent.

There is no creativity or motivation here to improve the functionality of
FFmpeg. Just arguing!

Having a Native VVC decoder is great. Most of us will be using it after a
few years once the codec becomes used.

I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
because there is no better option.

But there are issues:
1. "#ext-x-discontinuity" exists. Makes FFmpeg completely unable to
function with HLS depending on the circumstance.
2. TTML is used a lot on the internet as subtitles. FFmpeg doesn't have a
decoder at all. TTML is rarely supported other than browsers. There is no
way to convert and preserve formatting.
3. There is no encoder for cea-608 subtitles. Tons of services support
decoding but there's no way to encode it.
4. Services selling HLS encoder services. FFmpeg can generate an HLS
playlist. However, it's an important part: the web server.

I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
It was completely ignored.
If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.

Y'all can disagree with me. You are slowly digging a pit.

Kind regards,
Aidan / TheDaChicken
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 4:22 AM Aidan <steve.rock.pet@gmail.com> wrote:

> The best option is to figure stuff out.
>
> I don't see positive stuff in this mailing list - I lurk a lot in these
> emails.
>
> I see what you mean. I somewhat disagree/agree. New codecs or new formats
> is innovative to a certain extent.
>
> There is no creativity or motivation here to improve the functionality of
> FFmpeg. Just arguing!
>

And potentially taking your money.


> Having a Native VVC decoder is great. Most of us will be using it after a
> few years once the codec becomes used.
>
> I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
> like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
> because there is no better option.
>
> But there are issues:
> 1. "#ext-x-discontinuity" exists. Makes FFmpeg completely unable to
> function with HLS depending on the circumstance.
> 2. TTML is used a lot on the internet as subtitles. FFmpeg doesn't have a
> decoder at all. TTML is rarely supported other than browsers. There is no
> way to convert and preserve formatting.
> 3. There is no encoder for cea-608 subtitles. Tons of services support
> decoding but there's no way to encode it.
> 4. Services selling HLS encoder services. FFmpeg can generate an HLS
> playlist. However, it's an important part: the web server.
>
> I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
> It was completely ignored.
> If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.
>
> Y'all can disagree with me. You are slowly digging a pit.
>
> Kind regards,
> Aidan / TheDaChicken
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
> The best option is to figure stuff out.
[...]
> I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
> like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
> because there is no better option.
> 
> But there are issues:
[...]

> I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
> It was completely ignored.

Please ping the patch or send a new one.

> If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.

I think contribution management is a serious issue here.

What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
interactions.

Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
patch).

Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
got hundreds of backlog emails).

In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
timely fashion.

This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
FLOSS projects.

Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project).

It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.

We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/

but that's not really providing an effective workflow.

Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=TTML&archive=both&delegate=

I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Aidan]

>
> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
> > I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be
> great.
> > It was completely ignored.
> Please ping the patch or send a new one
>
I should probably redo my patch at this point. It's a year old. It's kind
of a complicated patch because TTML is a huge format.
It would be great to have a TTML decoder existing in FFmpeg. I guess if I
do submit one, I will be more annoying about pinging.
There is nowhere saying bumping every few weeks is ok. I read all
documentation related to sending a patch.

> > If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.

I think contribution management is a serious issue here.

What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
> will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
> pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
> interactions.
>
The only few times I've been completely ignored while trying to contribute
to FLOSS software was software that ended up being forked with a better
alternative because it was run by shitty people. However I am not saying
that FFmpeg is that way.

> Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
> process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
> review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
> patch).
>
> Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
> maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
> a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
> got hundreds of backlog emails).
>
> In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
> developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
> tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
> timely fashion.
>
> This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
> FLOSS projects.
>
> Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
> developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
> other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
> tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project)

Yep, you are completely right. I cannot say you aren't right.

>

It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
> having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
> times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
> affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
> is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.

I saw that conversation. It just sounds like over-complication for this
project. Email can be okay if done right. Not user-friendly but if its
documented good then its mostly fine.

>
>
We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/
>
> but that's not really providing an effective workflow.
>
> Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
>
> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=TTML&archive=both&delegate=
>
> I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.
>
Funny to see my old patch on that list.


Kind regards,
Aidan / TheDaChicken
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3535 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:19:50AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
> > The best option is to figure stuff out.
> [...]
> > I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
> > like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
> > because there is no better option.
> > 
> > But there are issues:
> [...]
> 
> > I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
> > It was completely ignored.
> 
> Please ping the patch or send a new one.
> 
> > If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.
> 
> I think contribution management is a serious issue here.
> 
> What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
> will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
> pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
> interactions.
> 
> Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
> process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
> review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
> patch).
> 
> Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
> maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
> a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
> got hundreds of backlog emails).
> 
> In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
> developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
> tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
> timely fashion.
> 
> This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
> FLOSS projects.
> 
> Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
> developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
> other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
> tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project).
> 
> It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
> having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
> times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
> affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
> is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.
> 
> We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/
> 
> but that's not really providing an effective workflow.
> 
> Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=TTML&archive=both&delegate=
> 
> I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.

Would it help if i add a "patch" type to trac.ffmpeg.org ?

If patches are missed on patchwork or its confusing, then
patch authors could open such a ticket type=patch that points to the patchwork patch

as tickets have all the metadata from keywords over priority to component
and do also allow voting. It may help keeping track of patches and also
allow the community to express their preferance with voting.

thx

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

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and
there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. -- Plato

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 18 Apr 2024, at 22:15, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:19:50AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
>>> The best option is to figure stuff out.
>> [...]
>>> I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
>>> like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
>>> because there is no better option.
>>>
>>> But there are issues:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
>>> It was completely ignored.
>>
>> Please ping the patch or send a new one.
>>
>>> If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.
>>
>> I think contribution management is a serious issue here.
>>
>> What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
>> will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
>> pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
>> interactions.
>>
>> Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
>> process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
>> review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
>> patch).
>>
>> Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
>> maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
>> a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
>> got hundreds of backlog emails).
>>
>> In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
>> developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
>> tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
>> timely fashion.
>>
>> This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
>> FLOSS projects.
>>
>> Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
>> developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
>> other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
>> tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project).
>>
>> It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
>> having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
>> times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
>> affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
>> is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.
>>
>> We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
>> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/
>>
>> but that's not really providing an effective workflow.
>>
>> Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
>> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=TTML&archive=both&delegate=
>>
>> I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.
>
> Would it help if i add a "patch" type to trac.ffmpeg.org ?
>
> If patches are missed on patchwork or its confusing, then
> patch authors could open such a ticket type=patch that points to the patchwork patch
>
> as tickets have all the metadata from keywords over priority to component
> and do also allow voting. It may help keeping track of patches and also
> allow the community to express their preferance with voting.

Just stating the obvious here but GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo or similar
would solve this without needing absolutely weird workarounds
like this…

>
> thx
>
> [...]
> -- 
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and
> there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
> some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. -- Plato
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4798 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:15:48PM +0200, epirat07@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18 Apr 2024, at 22:15, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:19:50AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
> >>> The best option is to figure stuff out.
> >> [...]
> >>> I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
> >>> like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
> >>> because there is no better option.
> >>>
> >>> But there are issues:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
> >>> It was completely ignored.
> >>
> >> Please ping the patch or send a new one.
> >>
> >>> If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.
> >>
> >> I think contribution management is a serious issue here.
> >>
> >> What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
> >> will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
> >> pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
> >> interactions.
> >>
> >> Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
> >> process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
> >> review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
> >> patch).
> >>
> >> Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
> >> maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
> >> a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
> >> got hundreds of backlog emails).
> >>
> >> In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
> >> developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
> >> tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
> >> timely fashion.
> >>
> >> This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
> >> FLOSS projects.
> >>
> >> Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
> >> developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
> >> other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
> >> tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project).
> >>
> >> It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
> >> having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
> >> times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
> >> affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
> >> is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.
> >>
> >> We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
> >> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/
> >>
> >> but that's not really providing an effective workflow.
> >>
> >> Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
> >> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=TTML&archive=both&delegate=
> >>
> >> I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.
> >
> > Would it help if i add a "patch" type to trac.ffmpeg.org ?
> >
> > If patches are missed on patchwork or its confusing, then
> > patch authors could open such a ticket type=patch that points to the patchwork patch
> >
> > as tickets have all the metadata from keywords over priority to component
> > and do also allow voting. It may help keeping track of patches and also
> > allow the community to express their preferance with voting.
> 
> Just stating the obvious here but GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo or similar
> would solve this without needing absolutely weird workarounds
> like this…

a small change to trac is easy to do and easy to undo, if it helps,
iam not sure a switch to GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo will happen, or even if it is a good idea.

we lack people with time and interrest to review and apply patches
switching the tools will cost more time, and working
with these tools would also add burden (at least to me)

other projects also seem not to have switched if i look at LKML for
example

IMO, if we can keep the mailing list workflow and at the same time
provide people who prefer it a "in browser" way to interact with
patches, submit, approve and so on. That would be best.
It seems patchwork does not fully fill this role.
Can something be done to improve patchwork so it works better maybe ?

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Dictatorship: All citizens are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the politicians to enforce control.
Democracy: All politicians are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the citizens to enforce control.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri Apr 19, 2024 at 12:45 AM CEST, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> a small change to trac is easy to do and easy to undo, if it helps,
> iam not sure a switch to GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo will happen, or even if it is a good idea.
>
> we lack people with time and interrest to review and apply patches
> switching the tools will cost more time, and working
> with these tools would also add burden (at least to me)
>
> other projects also seem not to have switched if i look at LKML for
> example
>
> IMO, if we can keep the mailing list workflow and at the same time
> provide people who prefer it a "in browser" way to interact with
> patches, submit, approve and so on. That would be best.
> It seems patchwork does not fully fill this role.
> Can something be done to improve patchwork so it works better maybe ?

Have you looked at SourceHut[1]? Their stated goal is building a FLOSS forge that
works on top of email rather than sidetracking it like GitHub & its clones do.
The whole software can AFAIK be self-hosted and includes an in-browser git viewer,
issue tracker[2], and mailing lists with decent support for patches[3].

[1] https://sourcehut.org/
[2] example: https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hare
[3] example: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> support for new codecs and formats.
> 
> Should we
> * make a list of longer term goals
> * vote on them
> * and then together work towards implementing them
> ?
> 
> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> to a previously agreed goal.
> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> 
> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> 
> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> 
[...]
> * client side / in browser support
>     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>     if we let others take this area as its important and significant

There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/

In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
languages, for example:
https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg

Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.

One option I'm currenly exploring is having a python filter enabling
to specify a custom filter implemented in python (needed for custom
ad-hoc logic you don't really want to implement in C since it's not
generic enough) and to enable using python modules when effiency is
not an issue.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 18 Apr 2024, at 10:46, Stefano Sabatini wrote:

> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>> support for new codecs and formats.
>>
>> Should we
>> * make a list of longer term goals
>> * vote on them
>> * and then together work towards implementing them
>> ?
>>
>> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
>> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
>> to a previously agreed goal.
>> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>>
>> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>>
>> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>>
> [...]
>> * client side / in browser support
>>     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>>     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>>     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>
> There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
>
> In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> languages, for example:
> https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
>
> Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
>
> One option I'm currenly exploring is having a python filter enabling
> to specify a custom filter implemented in python (needed for custom
> ad-hoc logic you don't really want to implement in C since it's not
> generic enough) and to enable using python modules when effiency is
> not an issue.

Lua would probably be a better choice for this from ease of integration
and also speed PoV last I checked. IIRC Python had some rather complex
threading implications when used in a library.

But I agree having something like this in general seems nice for some
prototyping and debugging with filters as well.

> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Roman Arzumanyan]

Hello world,

>  [your idea here]
Fully async API which provides a means to receive a notification when a
frame is decoded / processed by filter etc. Be it a callback, conditional
variable etc.

чт, 18 апр. 2024 г. в 12:22, <epirat07@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On 18 Apr 2024, at 10:46, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>
> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >> support for new codecs and formats.
> >>
> >> Should we
> >> * make a list of longer term goals
> >> * vote on them
> >> * and then together work towards implementing them
> >> ?
> >>
> >> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> >> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> >> to a previously agreed goal.
> >> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> >>
> >> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> >>
> >> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> >>
> > [...]
> >> * client side / in browser support
> >>     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the
> browser)
> >>     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> >>     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> >
> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> >
> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> > languages, for example:
> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> >
> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
> >
> > One option I'm currenly exploring is having a python filter enabling
> > to specify a custom filter implemented in python (needed for custom
> > ad-hoc logic you don't really want to implement in C since it's not
> > generic enough) and to enable using python modules when effiency is
> > not an issue.
>
> Lua would probably be a better choice for this from ease of integration
> and also speed PoV last I checked. IIRC Python had some rather complex
> threading implications when used in a library.
>
> But I agree having something like this in general seems nice for some
> prototyping and debugging with filters as well.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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".
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2363 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi all
> > 
> > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > support for new codecs and formats.
> > 
> > Should we
> > * make a list of longer term goals
> > * vote on them
> > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > ?
> > 
> > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > to a previously agreed goal.
> > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > 
> > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > 
> > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > 
> [...]
> > * client side / in browser support
> >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> 
> There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> 
> In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> languages, for example:
> https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> 
> Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.

From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
python, rust and wasm binding

It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
test coverage might also improve

I think the 2 questions are.
 1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
    FFmpeg binding for that language ?
 2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
            conveniently.
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
            can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > > 
> > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > > support for new codecs and formats.
> > > 
> > > Should we
> > > * make a list of longer term goals
> > > * vote on them
> > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> > >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > > to a previously agreed goal.
> > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > > 
> > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> > >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > > 
> > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > > 
> > [...]
> > > * client side / in browser support
> > >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> > >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> > 
> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> > 
> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> > languages, for example:
> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> > 
> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
> 
> From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
> python, rust and wasm binding
> 
> It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
> test coverage might also improve
> 
> I think the 2 questions are.
>  1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
>     FFmpeg binding for that language ?
>  2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?
> 
> thx

I've thought about this a lot while trying to learn FFmpeg.
IMHO there are two big hurdles to good other-language bindings:

First, FFmpeg's interface is full of C idioms that are unintuitive to
programmers from other languages.  For example, Stefano Sabatini is
patiently explaining to me in anoher thread how contexts are a central
concept in FFmpeg's design.  Even where I understood the code on a
mechanical level, I had drastically underestimated their importance
because I didn't have a mental model to understand them.  Binding
FFmpeg functionality in another language is only half the problem -
the interface needs to be explained in terms they can understand,
or rewritten in terms they already know.

Second, the interface is full of special cases that make translation
to other languages burdensome.  For example, C errors are based on
returning a value and requiring the caller to check it explicitly;
whereas most other languages throw an error and allow the caller to
catch it or not.  A translator needs to convert every one of those,
but FFmpeg functions don't have a standard mechanism to signal the
correct behaviour for a given function.  Even the documentation isn't
reliably helpful, sometimes saying a variant of "returns an AVERROR",
sometimes "returns a negative number", and sometimes it just
returns an int and expects the reader to dig through the source.
That eats up a huge amount of programmer time, and has to be done for
every language that wants a binding.

Solving those problems would make it far more practical for translators
to make bindings in other languages, and for new people to learn FFmpeg
even in C.  For example, creating an `enum AVERROR` and rewriting
functions to return it would make the code easier to read and drastically
cut translator time.

	- Andrew Sayers
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne]

Apr 23, 2024, 09:47 by ffmpeg-devel@pileofstuff.org:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > Hi all
>> > > 
>> > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>> > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>> > > support for new codecs and formats.
>> > > 
>> > > Should we
>> > > * make a list of longer term goals
>> > > * vote on them
>> > > * and then together work towards implementing them
>> > > ?
>> > > 
>> > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>> > >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
>> > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
>> > > to a previously agreed goal.
>> > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>> > > 
>> > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>> > >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>> > > 
>> > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>> > > 
>> > [...]
>> > > * client side / in browser support
>> > >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>> > >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>> > >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>> > 
>> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
>> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
>> > 
>> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
>> > languages, for example:
>> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
>> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
>> > 
>> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
>>
>> From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
>> python, rust and wasm binding
>>
>> It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
>> test coverage might also improve
>>
>> I think the 2 questions are.
>>  1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
>>  FFmpeg binding for that language ?
>>  2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?
>>
>> thx
>>
>
> I've thought about this a lot while trying to learn FFmpeg.
> IMHO there are two big hurdles to good other-language bindings:
>
> First, FFmpeg's interface is full of C idioms that are unintuitive to
> programmers from other languages.  For example, Stefano Sabatini is
> patiently explaining to me in anoher thread how contexts are a central
> concept in FFmpeg's design.  Even where I understood the code on a
> mechanical level, I had drastically underestimated their importance
> because I didn't have a mental model to understand them.  Binding
> FFmpeg functionality in another language is only half the problem -
> the interface needs to be explained in terms they can understand,
> or rewritten in terms they already know.
>
> Second, the interface is full of special cases that make translation
> to other languages burdensome.  For example, C errors are based on
> returning a value and requiring the caller to check it explicitly;
> whereas most other languages throw an error and allow the caller to
> catch it or not.  A translator needs to convert every one of those,
> but FFmpeg functions don't have a standard mechanism to signal the
> correct behaviour for a given function.  Even the documentation isn't
> reliably helpful, sometimes saying a variant of "returns an AVERROR",
> sometimes "returns a negative number", and sometimes it just
> returns an int and expects the reader to dig through the source.
> That eats up a huge amount of programmer time, and has to be done for
> every language that wants a binding.
>
> Solving those problems would make it far more practical for translators
> to make bindings in other languages, and for new people to learn FFmpeg
> even in C.  For example, creating an `enum AVERROR` and rewriting
> functions to return it would make the code easier to read and drastically
> cut translator time.
>

We always return a negative number for error. 
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:02:58AM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 23, 2024, 09:47 by ffmpeg-devel@pileofstuff.org:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > > Hi all
> >> > > 
> >> > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >> > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >> > > support for new codecs and formats.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Should we
> >> > > * make a list of longer term goals
> >> > > * vote on them
> >> > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> >> > > ?
> >> > > 
> >> > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >> > >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> >> > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> >> > > to a previously agreed goal.
> >> > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> >> > > 
> >> > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >> > >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> >> > > 
> >> > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> >> > > 
> >> > [...]
> >> > > * client side / in browser support
> >> > >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> >> > >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> >> > >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> >> > 
> >> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> >> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> >> > 
> >> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> >> > languages, for example:
> >> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> >> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> >> > 
> >> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
> >>
> >> From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
> >> python, rust and wasm binding
> >>
> >> It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
> >> test coverage might also improve
> >>
> >> I think the 2 questions are.
> >>  1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
> >>  FFmpeg binding for that language ?
> >>  2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?
> >>
> >> thx
> >>
> >
> > I've thought about this a lot while trying to learn FFmpeg.
> > IMHO there are two big hurdles to good other-language bindings:
> >
> > First, FFmpeg's interface is full of C idioms that are unintuitive to
> > programmers from other languages.  For example, Stefano Sabatini is
> > patiently explaining to me in anoher thread how contexts are a central
> > concept in FFmpeg's design.  Even where I understood the code on a
> > mechanical level, I had drastically underestimated their importance
> > because I didn't have a mental model to understand them.  Binding
> > FFmpeg functionality in another language is only half the problem -
> > the interface needs to be explained in terms they can understand,
> > or rewritten in terms they already know.
> >
> > Second, the interface is full of special cases that make translation
> > to other languages burdensome.  For example, C errors are based on
> > returning a value and requiring the caller to check it explicitly;
> > whereas most other languages throw an error and allow the caller to
> > catch it or not.  A translator needs to convert every one of those,
> > but FFmpeg functions don't have a standard mechanism to signal the
> > correct behaviour for a given function.  Even the documentation isn't
> > reliably helpful, sometimes saying a variant of "returns an AVERROR",
> > sometimes "returns a negative number", and sometimes it just
> > returns an int and expects the reader to dig through the source.
> > That eats up a huge amount of programmer time, and has to be done for
> > every language that wants a binding.
> >
> > Solving those problems would make it far more practical for translators
> > to make bindings in other languages, and for new people to learn FFmpeg
> > even in C.  For example, creating an `enum AVERROR` and rewriting
> > functions to return it would make the code easier to read and drastically
> > cut translator time.
> >
> 
> We always return a negative number for error. 

This is going to be a lot of detail for a specific example, but I think it
illuminates the general point...

Signalling an error with "a negative number" vs. "an AVERROR" is all-but
synonymous in C - in both cases, you just do `if ( ret < 0 ) return ret;`.  But
the equivalent idiom in most languages involves throwing different data types.
For example, a Python programmer would likely expect the former to throw an
"Exception", but the latter to throw some library-specific "AVErrorException"
type.  A function that "returns a negative number on error" might return `-1`
in all cases, or a random number that resembled an AVERROR in the case you
happened to test, or the former in some versions but the latter in others.
Erring towards throwing `Exception` causes people to avoid the binding because
it obfuscates information they need in their use case, while erring towards
`AVErrorException` causes people to avoid the binding because it generates
misleading error messages.

But let's assume the documentation never says "returns a negative number" when
it means "returns an AVERROR", or says "AVERROR" when it means "...except in
this one specal case where it returns -1".  What does a binding author do with
e.g.  `avformat_network_init()`, which returns an `int` but doesn't say whether
that `int` even indicates an error?  Their choice is to either pick one of the
exceptions or ignore the return code altogether, then wait for angry users to
tell them they got it wrong.  And given that FFmpeg has opted not to guarantee
a specific meaning, any choice will need to be revisited when new versions come
out.

Again, this is just a small example (and I've submitted a patch for the
specific avformat_network_init() issue[0]).  But there are plenty of abandoned
FFmpeg bindings out there, and I suspect it's because of issues like this
generating extra work to write and even more work to maintain.  Solving these
issues in FFmpeg would be at most as much work as solving them in a single
binding, and would also make it easier for new people to learn the C interface.

[0] https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-April/325991.html
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Niklas Haas]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> support for new codecs and formats.
> 
> Should we
> * make a list of longer term goals
> * vote on them
> * and then together work towards implementing them
> ?
> 
> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> to a previously agreed goal.
> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> 
> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> 
> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> 
> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>     (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>      friction as the team and community grows)

This would almost surely hurt productivity as it will require exposing,
versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal APIs
which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.

> * ffchat
>     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>     all parts for it already but some people where against it

This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?

> * client side / in browser support
>     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>     if we let others take this area as its important and significant

I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
FFmpeg for decoding?

> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these

We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
needed?

> * [your idea here]
> 
> thx
> 
> -- 
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> 
> It is what and why we do it that matters, not just one of them.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4364 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > Hi all
> > 
> > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > support for new codecs and formats.
> > 
> > Should we
> > * make a list of longer term goals
> > * vote on them
> > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > ?
> > 
> > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > to a previously agreed goal.
> > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > 
> > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > 
> > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > 
> > * Switch to a plugin architecture
> >     (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
> >      friction as the team and community grows)
> 
> This would almost surely hurt productivity

i dont agree, ill elaborae below


> as it will require exposing,
> versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal APIs

yes to some extend that is needed. It can be more or less depending
on how things are implemented


> which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.

we are modifying these APIs for decades. That modification of APIs
their documentation and all code using them costs time.

More so we have issues with patch-management. And i claim this is
not the mailing list but a lack of time and in some cases a lack of
interrest in many areas.

A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.

Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
code in any other way.
IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
on their own terms.
No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
...



> 
> > * ffchat
> >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> 
> This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
> should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
> FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?

ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.


> 
> > * client side / in browser support
> >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> 
> I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
> FFmpeg for decoding?

FFmpeg does more than decoding.


> 
> > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> >     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> >     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> 
> We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> needed?

more of that AND more convenience

lets pick a comparission
to run fate
you write "make fate"
if you want to do it with the samples its
make fate-rsync ; make fate

if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts reading their docs
and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....

how many people do that ?

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/18/2024 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>>> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>>> support for new codecs and formats.
>>>
>>> Should we
>>> * make a list of longer term goals
>>> * vote on them
>>> * and then together work towards implementing them
>>> ?
>>>
>>> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>>>   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
>>> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
>>> to a previously agreed goal.
>>> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>>>
>>> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>>>   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>>>
>>> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>>>
>>> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>>>      (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>>>       friction as the team and community grows)
>>
>> This would almost surely hurt productivity
> 
> i dont agree, ill elaborae below
> 
> 
>> as it will require exposing,
>> versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal APIs
> 
> yes to some extend that is needed. It can be more or less depending
> on how things are implemented
> 
> 
>> which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.
> 
> we are modifying these APIs for decades. That modification of APIs
> their documentation and all code using them costs time.

The AVCodec hooks being internal allowed us to add autoinserted bsfs and 
to painlessly rewrite the decouple I/O callbacks to work as a pure pull 
based interface. Were said internals public, that wouldn't have been 
possible.

> 
> More so we have issues with patch-management. And i claim this is
> not the mailing list but a lack of time and in some cases a lack of
> interrest in many areas.
> 
> A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> 
> Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.

A lot of patches fall through the cracks rather than being ignored.
There are people that send patchsets unthreaded (Because of 
misconfigured git send-email i suppose), and it makes browsing your 
mailbox hard.

> The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> code in any other way.
> IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> on their own terms.

You say the ML is not the problem, but it sort of is. An MR based 
development would greatly improve this problem.

> No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation

I don't personally have a strong opinion one way or another on this 
subject at this moment, but any such approach would need to be carefully 
thought and designed, to prevent all the potential problems people have 
expressed so far.

> ...
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>> * ffchat
>>>      (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>>>      bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>>>      all parts for it already but some people where against it
>>
>> This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
>> should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
>> FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
> 
> ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
> 
> 
>>
>>> * client side / in browser support
>>>      (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>>>      bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>>>      if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>>
>> I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
>> FFmpeg for decoding?
> 
> FFmpeg does more than decoding.
> 
> 
>>
>>> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>>>      The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>>>      neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
>>
>> We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
>> needed?
> 
> more of that AND more convenience
> 
> lets pick a comparission
> to run fate
> you write "make fate"
> if you want to do it with the samples its
> make fate-rsync ; make fate
> 
> if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts reading their docs
> and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....

By no means we could ever ship a custom AI model for the sake of a "git 
fetch, compile, and run" scenario. This was already a problem when 
tensorflow was first committed. So this can't be avoided.

> 
> how many people do that ?

Every external dependency has its documented requirements...

> 
> thx
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7329 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:13:40PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > Hi all
> > > > 
> > > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > > > support for new codecs and formats.
> > > > 
> > > > Should we
> > > > * make a list of longer term goals
> > > > * vote on them
> > > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > > > ?
> > > > 
> > > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> > > >   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > > > to a previously agreed goal.
> > > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > > > 
> > > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> > > >   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > > > 
> > > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > > > 
> > > > * Switch to a plugin architecture
> > > >      (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
> > > >       friction as the team and community grows)
> > > 
> > > This would almost surely hurt productivity
> > 
> > i dont agree, ill elaborae below
> > 
> > 
> > > as it will require exposing,
> > > versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal APIs
> > 
> > yes to some extend that is needed. It can be more or less depending
> > on how things are implemented
> > 
> > 
> > > which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.
> > 
> > we are modifying these APIs for decades. That modification of APIs
> > their documentation and all code using them costs time.
> 
> The AVCodec hooks being internal allowed us to add autoinserted bsfs and to
> painlessly rewrite the decouple I/O callbacks to work as a pure pull based
> interface. Were said internals public, that wouldn't have been possible.

A decoder API needs packet in, frame out.
AVPacket and AVFrame are public.
(and a bunch of key-value data like width / height / timebase / pixelformat / aspect / ...
 teh struct for that is also public since a long time)
I dont see the problem.

you have the decoder API facing the user, that causes no problems,
i dont agree that having a decoder API (or encoder, muxer, demuxer, ...)
facing a plugin would be a bigger problem than the APIs we already have
public
sure there are details, sure there are things that need one to think about
and sleep over and all that but these are from a high level point of
view simple and also the same interfaces to what we already have public


> 
> > 
> > More so we have issues with patch-management. And i claim this is
> > not the mailing list but a lack of time and in some cases a lack of
> > interrest in many areas.
> > 
> > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > 
> > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> 
> A lot of patches fall through the cracks rather than being ignored.
> There are people that send patchsets unthreaded (Because of misconfigured
> git send-email i suppose), and it makes browsing your mailbox hard.

well i can say that i dont review many patches anymore because i just dont have
the time, its not that i cant keep track of what i wanted to review.

either i make a note in a TODO list or i keep the patch marked as NEW
in my mail user agent.

trac in some sense or patchwork are just more public TODO lists
that can be shared between people so if one doesnt do it another
developer sees it and can do it.


> 
> > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> > are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> > code in any other way.
> > IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> > on their own terms.
> 
> You say the ML is not the problem, but it sort of is. An MR based
> development would greatly improve this problem.

People historically where very opposed to merge requests

But, having a public git repo (that people already have)
asking for it to be merged. You get a merge commit and someone will probably
feel offended by that. (thats not what you meant i guess)
but i would 100% support doing git merge requests.
(there are good arguments from people much smarter than me why
merging is better than rebasing)


> 
> > No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> > No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> > No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> > simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
> 
> I don't personally have a strong opinion one way or another on this subject
> at this moment, but any such approach would need to be carefully thought and
> designed, to prevent all the potential problems people have expressed so
> far.

of course this would require carefull design as any public API
would.


[...]

> > > 
> > > > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> > > >      The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> > > >      neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> > > 
> > > We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> > > needed?
> > 
> > more of that AND more convenience
> > 
> > lets pick a comparission
> > to run fate
> > you write "make fate"
> > if you want to do it with the samples its
> > make fate-rsync ; make fate
> > 
> > if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts reading their docs
> > and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....
> 
> By no means we could ever ship a custom AI model for the sake of a "git
> fetch, compile, and run" scenario. This was already a problem when
> tensorflow was first committed. So this can't be avoided.

I am not sure i understand you, but training a model on lets say the
fate samples or some public domain images. Why would we not be able
to ship that in a similar way to the fate samples ?

or why not ship a standarized script to build such a model from
user data ?
(i mean by standarized, the same for every filter, like ffmpeg is the same
 for every format not link to different papers and random off site scripts)


> 
> > 
> > how many people do that ?
> 
> Every external dependency has its documented requirements...

vf_sr doesnt have a example one can copy and paste that would
work on a fresh checkout of ffmpeg. That alone is a fail IMHO

thx

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

Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not
or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and
the brevity of human life -- Protagoras

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:19 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:13:40PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > On 4/18/2024 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > >
> > > > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > > > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > > > > support for new codecs and formats.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we
> > > > > * make a list of longer term goals
> > > > > * vote on them
> > > > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> > > > >   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > > > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > > > > to a previously agreed goal.
> > > > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants
> for
> > > > >
> > > > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> > > > >   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > > > >
> > > > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Switch to a plugin architecture
> > > > >      (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and
> reduce
> > > > >       friction as the team and community grows)
> > > >
> > > > This would almost surely hurt productivity
> > >
> > > i dont agree, ill elaborae below
> > >
> > >
> > > > as it will require exposing,
> > > > versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal
> APIs
> > >
> > > yes to some extend that is needed. It can be more or less depending
> > > on how things are implemented
> > >
> > >
> > > > which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.
> > >
> > > we are modifying these APIs for decades. That modification of APIs
> > > their documentation and all code using them costs time.
> >
> > The AVCodec hooks being internal allowed us to add autoinserted bsfs and
> to
> > painlessly rewrite the decouple I/O callbacks to work as a pure pull
> based
> > interface. Were said internals public, that wouldn't have been possible.
>
> A decoder API needs packet in, frame out.
> AVPacket and AVFrame are public.
> (and a bunch of key-value data like width / height / timebase /
> pixelformat / aspect / ...
>  teh struct for that is also public since a long time)
> I dont see the problem.
>
> you have the decoder API facing the user, that causes no problems,
> i dont agree that having a decoder API (or encoder, muxer, demuxer, ...)
> facing a plugin would be a bigger problem than the APIs we already have
> public
> sure there are details, sure there are things that need one to think about
> and sleep over and all that but these are from a high level point of
> view simple and also the same interfaces to what we already have public
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > More so we have issues with patch-management. And i claim this is
> > > not the mailing list but a lack of time and in some cases a lack of
> > > interrest in many areas.
> > >
> > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > >
> > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> >
> > A lot of patches fall through the cracks rather than being ignored.
> > There are people that send patchsets unthreaded (Because of misconfigured
> > git send-email i suppose), and it makes browsing your mailbox hard.
>
> well i can say that i dont review many patches anymore because i just dont
> have
> the time, its not that i cant keep track of what i wanted to review.
>
> either i make a note in a TODO list or i keep the patch marked as NEW
> in my mail user agent.
>
> trac in some sense or patchwork are just more public TODO lists
> that can be shared between people so if one doesnt do it another
> developer sees it and can do it.
>
>
> >
> > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > > Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> > > are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> > > code in any other way.
> > > IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> > > on their own terms.
> >
> > You say the ML is not the problem, but it sort of is. An MR based
> > development would greatly improve this problem.
>
> People historically where very opposed to merge requests
>
> But, having a public git repo (that people already have)
> asking for it to be merged. You get a merge commit and someone will
> probably
> feel offended by that. (thats not what you meant i guess)
> but i would 100% support doing git merge requests.
> (there are good arguments from people much smarter than me why
> merging is better than rebasing)
>
>
> >
> > > No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> > > No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> > > No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> > > simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
> >
> > I don't personally have a strong opinion one way or another on this
> subject
> > at this moment, but any such approach would need to be carefully thought
> and
> > designed, to prevent all the potential problems people have expressed so
> > far.
>
> of course this would require carefull design as any public API
> would.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > > >
> > > > > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> > > > >      The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs
> will use
> > > > >      neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing
> these
> > > >
> > > > We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> > > > needed?
> > >
> > > more of that AND more convenience
> > >
> > > lets pick a comparission
> > > to run fate
> > > you write "make fate"
> > > if you want to do it with the samples its
> > > make fate-rsync ; make fate
> > >
> > > if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some
> scripts reading their docs
> > > and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....
> >
> > By no means we could ever ship a custom AI model for the sake of a "git
> > fetch, compile, and run" scenario. This was already a problem when
> > tensorflow was first committed. So this can't be avoided.
>
> I am not sure i understand you, but training a model on lets say the
> fate samples or some public domain images. Why would we not be able
> to ship that in a similar way to the fate samples ?
>
> or why not ship a standarized script to build such a model from
> user data ?
> (i mean by standarized, the same for every filter, like ffmpeg is the same
>  for every format not link to different papers and random off site scripts)
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > how many people do that ?
> >
> > Every external dependency has its documented requirements...
>
> vf_sr doesnt have a example one can copy and paste that would
> work on a fresh checkout of ffmpeg. That alone is a fail IMHO
>
>
Current AI tech is just inflated hype, for both audio and video processing.


> thx
>
> [...]
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not
> or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and
> the brevity of human life -- Protagoras
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Niklas Haas]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.

A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
mailing list.

I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.

> Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews

So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.

This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
ML+pingspam model.

We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
N days gets *automatically* merged.

I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
this. (Maybe SPI?)

> Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> code in any other way.
> IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> on their own terms.
> No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > * ffchat
> > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > 
> > This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
> > should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
> > FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
> 
> ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > * client side / in browser support
> > >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> > >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> > 
> > I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
> > FFmpeg for decoding?
> 
> FFmpeg does more than decoding.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> > >     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> > >     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> > 
> > We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> > needed?
> 
> more of that AND more convenience
> 
> lets pick a comparission
> to run fate
> you write "make fate"
> if you want to do it with the samples its
> make fate-rsync ; make fate
> 
> if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts reading their docs
> and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....
> 
> how many people do that ?
> 
> thx
> 
> [...]
> 
> -- 
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> 
> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
> -- Xenocrates
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 19 Apr 2024, at 16:50, Niklas Haas wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>> A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
>> care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
>
> A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> mailing list.
>
> I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
>
>> Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
>> The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
>> are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
>
> So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
>
> This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> ML+pingspam model.

I agree with that.

IMO extending patchwork while possible is just a stopgap measure and
requires quite a bit of effort too that is probably better spent elsewhere.

Using Trac to manage patches additionally just adds even more inconsistent places
to have patch info that go out of sync with reality like patchwork already does…

I am by no means a die hard GitLab fan, quite the contrary, but I still believe
it is a vast improvement over the Mailing List workflow and if there are shortcomings
in the tooling so that some peoples workflows can continue to work, efforts are probably
better spent overcoming these, rather than „beating a dead horse“ (patching Patchwork).

>
> We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
> least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
> N days gets *automatically* merged.

Just to clarify, it does not automatically merge but rather tags them
and a maintainer still does the actual merge.

>
> I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
> this. (Maybe SPI?)
>
>> Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
>> are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
>> code in any other way.
>> IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
>> on their own terms.
>> No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
>> No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
>> No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
>> simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> * ffchat
>>>>     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>>>>     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>>>>     all parts for it already but some people where against it
>>>
>>> This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
>>> should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
>>> FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
>>
>> ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> * client side / in browser support
>>>>     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>>>>     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>>>>     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>>>
>>> I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
>>> FFmpeg for decoding?
>>
>> FFmpeg does more than decoding.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>>>>     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>>>>     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
>>>
>>> We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
>>> needed?
>>
>> more of that AND more convenience
>>
>> lets pick a comparission
>> to run fate
>> you write "make fate"
>> if you want to do it with the samples its
>> make fate-rsync ; make fate
>>
>> if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts reading their docs
>> and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....
>>
>> how many people do that ?
>>
>> thx
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> -- 
>> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>>
>> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
>> -- Xenocrates
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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".
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Zhao Zhili]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Niklas Haas
> Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> 
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> 
> A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> mailing list.
> 
> I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.

VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went toooo far 😝),
I don't think plugin is that dangerous.

Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.

Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for our
development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
upstream.

> 
> > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> 
> So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> 
> This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> ML+pingspam model.

+1.

I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.

Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter out
patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame it
doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.

> 
> We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
> least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
> N days gets *automatically* merged.
> 
> I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
> this. (Maybe SPI?)
> 
> > Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> > are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> > code in any other way.
> > IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> > on their own terms.
> > No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> > No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> > No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> > simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > * ffchat
> > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > >
> > > This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
> > > should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
> > > FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
> >
> > ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > * client side / in browser support
> > > >     (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
> > > >     bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > > >     if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> > >
> > > I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
> > > FFmpeg for decoding?
> >
> > FFmpeg does more than decoding.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> > > >     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> > > >     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> > >
> > > We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> > > needed?
> >
> > more of that AND more convenience
> >
> > lets pick a comparission
> > to run fate
> > you write "make fate"
> > if you want to do it with the samples its
> > make fate-rsync ; make fate
> >
> > if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts reading their docs
> > and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? ....
> >
> > how many people do that ?
> >
> > thx
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > --
> > Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> >
> > I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
> > -- Xenocrates
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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".
> _______________________________________________
> 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".

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Diederick C. Niehorster]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 19:35 Zhao Zhili <quinkblack@foxmail.com> wrote:

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Niklas Haas
> > Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> >
> > A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> > just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> > mailing list.
> >
> > I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
>
> VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went toooo far
> 😝),
> I don't think plugin is that dangerous.
>
> Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.
>
> Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for
> our
> development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
> upstream.
>
> >
> > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> >
> > So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> > somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> >
> > This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> > community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> > several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> > ML+pingspam model.
>
> +1.
>
> I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
> I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.
>
> Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter
> out
> patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame
> it
> doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.
>

If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
3. Move fate running to there

Etc

>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <dcnieho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> 3. Move fate running to there
>

+1

Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
being afraid to ban them when needed.
Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
people have access to the mailing list control panel.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> dcnieho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> >
>
> +1
>
> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
>

Welcome to the New LibAV Order!

-- 
> Vittorio
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/19/2024 4:05 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
>> dcnieho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
>> what
>>> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
>>> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
>>> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
>>> 3. Move fate running to there
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
>> being afraid to ban them when needed.
>> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
>> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
>>
> 
> Welcome to the New LibAV Order!

Paul, please, can you stop with this?
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 9:45 PM James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/2024 4:05 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> >> dcnieho@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> >> what
> >>> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> >>> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> >>> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> >>> 3. Move fate running to there
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> >> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> >> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> >> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> >>
> >
> > Welcome to the New LibAV Order!
>
> Paul, please, can you stop with this?
>

I stand for Truth And Justice.

You all stand for Force And Power.


> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> dcnieho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> >
>
> +1
>
> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
>

The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed by
the General Assembly, in a majority vote."

Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will not
be an issue.

Ronald
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> > dcnieho@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> > what
> > > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > > 3. Move fate running to there
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> > being afraid to ban them when needed.
> > Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> > people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> >
>
> The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
> the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed by
> the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
>
> Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will not
> be an issue.
>

Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> > > dcnieho@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> about
> > > what
> > > > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > > > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > > > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > > > 3. Move fate running to there
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> not
> > > being afraid to ban them when needed.
> > > Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> > > people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> > >
> >
> > The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> > https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> > remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
> > the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed
> by
> > the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >
> > Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> not
> > be an issue.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
>

By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
majority of active controlled figures.

So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
and 0 innovations,
with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
already happening.

Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very generous
today.


> --
> Vittorio
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/19/2024 7:28 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
>>> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
>>>> dcnieho@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
>> about
>>>> what
>>>>> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
>>>>> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
>>>>> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
>>>>> 3. Move fate running to there
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
>> not
>>>> being afraid to ban them when needed.
>>>> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
>>>> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
>>> https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
>>> remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
>>> the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed
>> by
>>> the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
>>>
>>> Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
>> not
>>> be an issue.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
>> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
>> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
>> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
>>
> 
> By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
> majority of active controlled figures.

What bots? That makes no sense.

> 
> So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
> and 0 innovations,
> with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
> already happening.
> 
> Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
> I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very generous
> today.
> 
> 
>> --
>> Vittorio
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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".
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:31 AM James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/2024 7:28 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> >>> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> >>>> dcnieho@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> >> about
> >>>> what
> >>>>> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> >>>>> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> >>>>> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> >>>>> 3. Move fate running to there
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> >> not
> >>>> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> >>>> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> >>>> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> >>> https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> >>> remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban
> from
> >>> the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be
> confirmed
> >> by
> >>> the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >>>
> >>> Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> >> not
> >>> be an issue.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> >> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> >> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had
> no
> >> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
> >>
> >
> > By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
> > majority of active controlled figures.
>
> What bots? That makes no sense.
>

Current situation in FFmpeg makes no sense.
Could someone explain current FFmpeg situation?


>
> >
> > So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
> > and 0 innovations,
> > with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
> > already happening.
> >
> > Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
> > I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very
> generous
> > today.
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Vittorio
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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".
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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".
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> > > dcnieho@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> about
> > > what
> > > > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > > > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > > > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > > > 3. Move fate running to there
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> not
> > > being afraid to ban them when needed.
> > > Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> > > people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> > >
> >
> > The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> > https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> > remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
> > the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed
> by
> > the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >
> > Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> not
> > be an issue.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
>

Yes. But anyone else, even you, could start a GA permaban vote also. (I'm
not suggesting you do this, I'm just saying it so it's clear that it
doesn't have to be initiated by a CC member.)

Ronald
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3960 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 08:00:28PM +0200, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 19:35 Zhao Zhili <quinkblack@foxmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > Niklas Haas
> > > Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> > michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > >
> > > A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> > > just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> > > mailing list.
> > >
> > > I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
> >
> > VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went toooo far
> > 😝),
> > I don't think plugin is that dangerous.
> >
> > Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.
> >
> > Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for
> > our
> > development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
> > upstream.
> >
> > >
> > > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > >
> > > So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> > > somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> > >
> > > This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> > > community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> > > several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> > > ML+pingspam model.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
> > I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.
> >
> > Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter
> > out
> > patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame
> > it
> > doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.
> >
> 
> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.

> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance

I think we first need to understand what exact problem there is with the
ML/Patchwork workflow. Write this down. See if we all agree on that

Look at what workflow* people use
Look at what alternatives to ML/Patchwork there are
I think others than gitlab where suggested like gittea and forgejo

And then carefully evaluate each for cost vs benefit.

If we agree on one then its probably best to setup a small test environment
and have the whole team try to use that before we consider a switch


> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)

why ?


> 3. Move fate running to there

why ?


workflow*
    For example, i go through patches on the ML with mutt and i have one key
    to apply a patch and another to open an editor and write a reply. Also i have
    my muttrc setup so it colorizes diffs nicely so patches are easy to review
    I do test close to every patch posted on ffmpeg-devel, so being able
    to quickly apply patches matters. If i had to use a GUI based browser
    and click around with the mouse it would probably mean an end for me
    testing all patches, simply as it would be too inconvenient and slow.

thx

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Democracy is the form of government in which you can choose your dictator

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 01:05:13AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 08:00:28PM +0200, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 19:35 Zhao Zhili <quinkblack@foxmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > > Niklas Haas
> > > > Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> > > michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > > >
> > > > A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> > > > just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> > > > mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
> > >
> > > VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went toooo far
> > > 😝),
> > > I don't think plugin is that dangerous.
> > >
> > > Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.
> > >
> > > Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for
> > > our
> > > development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
> > > upstream.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > > > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > > >
> > > > So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> > > > somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> > > >
> > > > This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> > > > community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> > > > several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> > > > ML+pingspam model.
> > >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
> > > I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.
> > >
> > > Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter
> > > out
> > > patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame
> > > it
> > > doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.
> > >
> > 
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> 
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> 
> I think we first need to understand what exact problem there is with the
> ML/Patchwork workflow. Write this down. See if we all agree on that
> 
> Look at what workflow* people use
> Look at what alternatives to ML/Patchwork there are
> I think others than gitlab where suggested like gittea and forgejo
> 
> And then carefully evaluate each for cost vs benefit.
> 
> If we agree on one then its probably best to setup a small test environment
> and have the whole team try to use that before we consider a switch
> 
> 
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> 
> why ?
> 
> 
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> 
> why ?
> 
> 
> workflow*
>     For example, i go through patches on the ML with mutt and i have one key
>     to apply a patch and another to open an editor and write a reply. Also i have
>     my muttrc setup so it colorizes diffs nicely so patches are easy to review
>     I do test close to every patch posted on ffmpeg-devel, so being able
>     to quickly apply patches matters. If i had to use a GUI based browser
>     and click around with the mouse it would probably mean an end for me
>     testing all patches, simply as it would be too inconvenient and slow.

It seems like this is splitting into two slightly different questions:

One is "there's a bunch of jobs that could be interesting to someone, but
nobody here wants to do.  How do we attract people who'd want to do them?".
For example, bindings in other languages are only interesting to people who use
those languages, and people here are generally happy with C.

The other is "there's a bunch of jobs nobody will ever want to do, how do we
automate them away?".  For example, it sounds like keeping the website updated
is a boring routine you've found yourself stuck with.

Moving away from the ML has to mean answering the first question with a
trade-off.  For example, I've got several patches outstanding, and I would
*love* an interface that said "assigned: so-and-so" for the ones that just need
a ping, and "unassigned" for the ones I shouldn't waste my limited energy on.
But from your point-of-view, that would mean being chased through your day by a
page of jobs people expect you to get done.

On the other hand, there are many win/win answers to the automation question.
For example, most platforms have some kind of SaaS solution built in (GitHub
Actions, GitLab CI/CD etc.).  It's fairly easy to make these apply every patch
and run fate tests without human intervention, so you can gradually turn review
work from an expert job falling largely on your shoulders to a paint-by-numbers
exercise anyone of moderate skill can do.  That makes it easier for new people
to join the project (because they can do more without help), and frees you up
to work on things that are more fun and add more value.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Davy Durham]

On 4/19/24 09:50, Niklas Haas wrote:
> So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
>
> This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> ML+pingspam model.
>
> We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
> least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
> N days gets *automatically* merged.
>
> I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
> this. (Maybe SPI?)

+1 from me too.  Please oh, please oh, /please/ modernize the patch 
management.  I don't know what the opposition/inability to use github is 
all about.  But gitlab should be a great improvement on the ML/patchwork 
situation.

gitlab has a hosted edition for opensource projects 
<https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/>.   (Or is the 
opposition to github about trusting someone else to host it in general?)

Automated CI/CD pipelines will change your /life/ if you've never used 
them.  I was once opposed but wouldn't want to do it any other way for 
any significant project anymore.

Inline comments on MRs would be a great improvement for discussions and 
requests from maintainers, and plus it's much easier to see/drill-into 
those discussion from the blame view.

my two cents

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 8:03 AM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> On 4/19/24 09:50, Niklas Haas wrote:
> +1 from me too.  Please oh, please oh, /please/ modernize the patch 
> management.  I don't know what the opposition/inability to use github is 
> all about.  But gitlab should be a great improvement on the ML/patchwork 
> situation.
I can give you my POV as someone who dislikes GitHub-like workflows. I
have no idea if anyone's gonna read it, but anyway...

To contribute with GitHub/GitLab, I have to create an account. This
might sound trivial, but I find it really annoying to have to maintain
an account on a bunch of code hosting platform just to contribute a single
patch to a bunch of software projects. I guarantee you I wouldn't contribute
to ffmpeg if I had to create an account to do so (though my patch wasn't
incorporated anyway despite it being like 20 lines, so I guess it wouldn't
change much).

Another issue which is very important to me is the fact that neither GitHub
nor GitLab work reliably with various privacy add-ons and browser settings.
Gitea is the only GitHub-like software that is usable with these, so if you
really have to use a GitHub-like workflow, please consider that over GitLab
if you care at all about usability.GitLab is the worst in this respect
because not a single thing about it works without JavaScript (I mean,
I can't even read a project's README without it).

I would really suggest you look at SourceHut. It keeps mailing list with
patches workflow, but all the patches are tracked including whether they
were incorporated, rejected, someone requested changes, etc. Other than
that it has many features you find in other code hosting platforms,
including an issue tracker, CI/CD, an equivalent for GitHub's "wiki"
and "pages" features, etc. It's more accessible than all the platforms
I've mentioned above, in particular it seems to work well even in limited
browsers without JavaScript and the UI is faster (much faster than GitLab).

It also does not require you to have an account to contribute. In fact,
I don't have an account there either and want to make it clear that I am
not connected to SourceHut in any way. I just really enjoy the experience
of contributing like:

$ git format-patch master
$ git send-email ~username/project-devel@lists.sr.ht

No need to sign up to a mailing list or a code hosting platform, no need
to create a "fork" and a pull request, ...

>
> gitlab has a hosted edition for opensource projects 
> <https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/>.   (Or is the 
> opposition to github about trusting someone else to host it in general?)
>
> Automated CI/CD pipelines will change your /life/ if you've never used 
> them.  I was once opposed but wouldn't want to do it any other way for 
> any significant project anymore.
>
> Inline comments on MRs would be a great improvement for discussions and 
> requests from maintainers, and plus it's much easier to see/drill-into 
> those discussion from the blame view.
>
> my two cents
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 6:37 PM CEST, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> $ git format-patch master
> $ git send-email ~username/project-devel@lists.sr.ht
Should have checked what I'm writing. The second line should be
$ git send-email --to ~username/project-devel@lists.sr.ht *.patch

Oops.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Davy Durham]

Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
contribute to ffmpeg?

So on the flip side, I (actually) find it just as annoying to have to
create such accounts at every project rather than my having one account at
GitHub (or a relatively few for other hosting sites) and can then
contribute to literally thousands of projects without any friction.

Moreover now being subscribed to that list I get 50 emails a day that I
have to wait through. Just so long as I want to contribute. Sure I can
create rules but it is pretty obnoxious.

As a casual contributor, I much prefer getting notifications about my
occasion contributions.  But one can opt to get notified of everything by
subscribing to the whole project.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 11:44 AM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:

> On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 8:03 AM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> > On 4/19/24 09:50, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > +1 from me too.  Please oh, please oh, /please/ modernize the patch
> > management.  I don't know what the opposition/inability to use github is
> > all about.  But gitlab should be a great improvement on the ML/patchwork
> > situation.
> I can give you my POV as someone who dislikes GitHub-like workflows. I
> have no idea if anyone's gonna read it, but anyway...
>
> To contribute with GitHub/GitLab, I have to create an account. This
> might sound trivial, but I find it really annoying to have to maintain
> an account on a bunch of code hosting platform just to contribute a single
> patch to a bunch of software projects. I guarantee you I wouldn't
> contribute
> to ffmpeg if I had to create an account to do so (though my patch wasn't
> incorporated anyway despite it being like 20 lines, so I guess it wouldn't
> change much).
>
> Another issue which is very important to me is the fact that neither GitHub
> nor GitLab work reliably with various privacy add-ons and browser settings.
> Gitea is the only GitHub-like software that is usable with these, so if you
> really have to use a GitHub-like workflow, please consider that over GitLab
> if you care at all about usability.GitLab is the worst in this respect
> because not a single thing about it works without JavaScript (I mean,
> I can't even read a project's README without it).
>
> I would really suggest you look at SourceHut. It keeps mailing list with
> patches workflow, but all the patches are tracked including whether they
> were incorporated, rejected, someone requested changes, etc. Other than
> that it has many features you find in other code hosting platforms,
> including an issue tracker, CI/CD, an equivalent for GitHub's "wiki"
> and "pages" features, etc. It's more accessible than all the platforms
> I've mentioned above, in particular it seems to work well even in limited
> browsers without JavaScript and the UI is faster (much faster than GitLab).
>
> It also does not require you to have an account to contribute. In fact,
> I don't have an account there either and want to make it clear that I am
> not connected to SourceHut in any way. I just really enjoy the experience
> of contributing like:
>
> $ git format-patch master
> $ git send-email ~username/project-devel@lists.sr.ht
>
> No need to sign up to a mailing list or a code hosting platform, no need
> to create a "fork" and a pull request, ...
>
> >
> > gitlab has a hosted edition for opensource projects
> > <https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/>.   (Or is the
> > opposition to github about trusting someone else to host it in general?)
> >
> > Automated CI/CD pipelines will change your /life/ if you've never used
> > them.  I was once opposed but wouldn't want to do it any other way for
> > any significant project anymore.
> >
> > Inline comments on MRs would be a great improvement for discussions and
> > requests from maintainers, and plus it's much easier to see/drill-into
> > those discussion from the blame view.
> >
> > my two cents
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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".
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le maanantaina 29. huhtikuuta 2024, 22.04.00 EEST Davy Durham a écrit :
> Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
> contribute to ffmpeg?

Yes, but subscribing to a mailing list is much easier than creating a Gitlab 
account (especially if 2FA is needed), and cloning FFmpeg there.

Still that is a minor inconvenience for first time contributors, which is way 
way outweighed by the extra convenience for the code review and merge process.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 9:04 PM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
> contribute to ffmpeg?
>
> So on the flip side, I (actually) find it just as annoying to have to
> create such accounts at every project rather than my having one account at
> GitHub (or a relatively few for other hosting sites) and can then
> contribute to literally thousands of projects without any friction.
I would disagree on the "friction" part. To contribute, you have to "fork"
the project, add your "fork" as a new git remote, push to it, and only then
can you create a pull request. In comparison, contributing using email is
literally just two simple git commands without ever having to leave the
terminal.

> Moreover now being subscribed to that list I get 50 emails a day that I
> have to wait through. Just so long as I want to contribute. Sure I can
> create rules but it is pretty obnoxious.
>
> As a casual contributor, I much prefer getting notifications about my
> occasion contributions.  But one can opt to get notified of everything by
> subscribing to the whole project.
I actually agree that the mailing list can be somewhat annoying as well,
which is why I like that on SourceHut you can send a patch to their mailing
lists without being subscribed and it's standard practice that people Cc you
on the replies. I really feel like this should be standard practice;
subscribing to the mailing list makes no sense if you only want to send in a
single patch, and it increases the effort required by flooding you with emails
which aren't relevant to you, as you say.

I personally find the mailing list much less annoying than using GitHub even
when subscription is required, but I feel like without having to subscribe
it's the most straight-forward way really.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:05:05PM +0200, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 9:04 PM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> > Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
> > contribute to ffmpeg?
> >
> > So on the flip side, I (actually) find it just as annoying to have to
> > create such accounts at every project rather than my having one account at
> > GitHub (or a relatively few for other hosting sites) and can then
> > contribute to literally thousands of projects without any friction.
> I would disagree on the "friction" part. To contribute, you have to "fork"
> the project, add your "fork" as a new git remote, push to it, and only then
> can you create a pull request. In comparison, contributing using email is
> literally just two simple git commands without ever having to leave the
> terminal.

IMHO, GitHub have improved that user experience significantly in recent years.
Yes you're still making a fork and pushing it, but the experience is more like
click the edit button -> make changes (in an admittedly clunky web editor) ->
save and push.  The rest is just kinda presented as implementation details.

That's a bit of a nitpick, but the wider point is interesting -
GitHub etc. are fast-moving targets, so today's friction points become
tomorrow's selling points, then the next day's lock-in opportunities.
That makes it hard to compare to a mailing list, which is unlikely to be
better or worse ten years from now.

> > Moreover now being subscribed to that list I get 50 emails a day that I
> > have to wait through. Just so long as I want to contribute. Sure I can
> > create rules but it is pretty obnoxious.
> >
> > As a casual contributor, I much prefer getting notifications about my
> > occasion contributions.  But one can opt to get notified of everything by
> > subscribing to the whole project.
> I actually agree that the mailing list can be somewhat annoying as well,
> which is why I like that on SourceHut you can send a patch to their mailing
> lists without being subscribed and it's standard practice that people Cc you
> on the replies. I really feel like this should be standard practice;
> subscribing to the mailing list makes no sense if you only want to send in a
> single patch, and it increases the effort required by flooding you with emails
> which aren't relevant to you, as you say.
> 
> I personally find the mailing list much less annoying than using GitHub even
> when subscription is required, but I feel like without having to subscribe
> it's the most straight-forward way really.

I haven't properly tried this, and it's an ugly hack if it works at all, but it
might be possible to support logged-out comments with a web-based trigger.

Triggers are designed to let you e.g. ping a URL on github.com when some
third-party dependency is updated, and have code on their servers automatically
pull in that dependency and rebuild your package without manual intervention.
But you could equally ping "my-web-hook?name=...&comment=..." then have your
bot turn that into a comment.

This isn't unique to GitHub - a quick look suggests GitLab can do the same,
and I wouldn't be surprised if SourceHut can too.  And a self-hosted solution
could presumably use this as the basis for a general anonymous comment thing.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Wed May 1, 2024 at 1:01 AM CEST, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:05:05PM +0200, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> > [...]
>
> IMHO, GitHub have improved that user experience significantly in recent years.
> Yes you're still making a fork and pushing it, but the experience is more like
> click the edit button -> make changes (in an admittedly clunky web editor) ->
> save and push.  The rest is just kinda presented as implementation details.
>
> That's a bit of a nitpick, but the wider point is interesting -
> GitHub etc. are fast-moving targets, so today's friction points become
> tomorrow's selling points, then the next day's lock-in opportunities.
> That makes it hard to compare to a mailing list, which is unlikely to be
> better or worse ten years from now.
That's an interesting point, and I guess it also shows how different
perspectives result in very different conclusions. To me, GitHub being
fast-moving is a negative for the same reason the whole Web tech stack
being fast-moving is.

It means that unless I use the latest Chrome or Firefox or something built on
their engines, I am going to be locked out from participating. Worse, because
contemporary JS technologies are getting increasingly power-hungry, one needs a
relatively recent desktop to be able to use many of these things, which, apart
from leading to needless electronic waste, could be a serious barrier for people
in poorer parts of the world.

Of course, big tech companies intentionally using inefficient software to drive
up sales of new hardware sounds completely like a conspiracy theory... until you
look at the news and read about Microsoft's Windows 11 lacking support for older
hardware without any apparent reason, as people were able to modify the OS to
run on such hardware and it worked just fine. I don't need to remind anyone that
GitHub is owned by Microsoft.

I believe stability and simplicity are virtues, not drawbacks.

> > > [...]
> > I actually agree that the mailing list can be somewhat annoying as well,
> > which is why I like that on SourceHut you can send a patch to their mailing
> > lists without being subscribed and it's standard practice that people Cc you
> > on the replies. I really feel like this should be standard practice;
> > subscribing to the mailing list makes no sense if you only want to send in a
> > single patch, and it increases the effort required by flooding you with emails
> > which aren't relevant to you, as you say.
> >
> > [...]
>
> I haven't properly tried this, and it's an ugly hack if it works at all, but it
> might be possible to support logged-out comments with a web-based trigger.
>
> Triggers are designed to let you e.g. ping a URL on github.com when some
> third-party dependency is updated, and have code on their servers automatically
> pull in that dependency and rebuild your package without manual intervention.
> But you could equally ping "my-web-hook?name=...&comment=..." then have your
> bot turn that into a comment.
I must admit that this is an interesting idea, but unless people can also
contribute that way it's not going to be very useful. And I am afraid that
such "bridging" of email to GitHub would degrade the user experience on both
sides, as I have seen happen in similar cases elsewhere, e.g. with Matrix being
bridged to IRC.

I mean -- if it's decided to switch to GitHub because its code review is
supposedly better, then surely the last thing those people would want is others
sending in their reviews as emails, completely avoiding GitHub's code review
facilities.

> This isn't unique to GitHub - a quick look suggests GitLab can do the same,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if SourceHut can too.  And a self-hosted solution
> could presumably use this as the basis for a general anonymous comment thing.
SourceHut needs no such hacks -- it already accepts comments sent in through
email to its issue tracker, and code review is done directly on mailing lists.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Kieran Kunhya]

Sent from my mobile device

On Thu, 2 May 2024, 15:54 Ondřej Fiala, <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:

> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 1:01 AM CEST, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:05:05PM +0200, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > IMHO, GitHub have improved that user experience significantly in recent
> years.
> > Yes you're still making a fork and pushing it, but the experience is
> more like
> > click the edit button -> make changes (in an admittedly clunky web
> editor) ->
> > save and push.  The rest is just kinda presented as implementation
> details.
> >
> > That's a bit of a nitpick, but the wider point is interesting -
> > GitHub etc. are fast-moving targets, so today's friction points become
> > tomorrow's selling points, then the next day's lock-in opportunities.
> > That makes it hard to compare to a mailing list, which is unlikely to be
> > better or worse ten years from now.
> That's an interesting point, and I guess it also shows how different
> perspectives result in very different conclusions. To me, GitHub being
> fast-moving is a negative for the same reason the whole Web tech stack
> being fast-moving is.
>

I feel it's a huge selection bias to have arguments about Gitlab vs Mailing
list handled on a mailing list.

[insert meme of plane with holes in it]

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:20 PM CEST, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > [...]
> I feel it's a huge selection bias to have arguments about Gitlab vs Mailing
> list handled on a mailing list.
>
> [...]
You will get similar selection bias anywhere else. Even if you handled
such a conversation on a discussion site, the technology powering such
site will influence what kind of people use it. While discussing this
here likely excludes people who don't know how to use a mailing list,
having such a debate on Reddit, for example, would exclude people who
don't use social media (anyone valuing their privacy and mental health),
etc. IMHO there is no way to avoid that.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:

> On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:20 PM CEST, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > > [...]
> > I feel it's a huge selection bias to have arguments about Gitlab vs
> Mailing
> > list handled on a mailing list.
> >
> > [...]
> You will get similar selection bias anywhere else. Even if you handled
> such a conversation on a discussion site, the technology powering such
> site will influence what kind of people use it. While discussing this
> here likely excludes people who don't know how to use a mailing list,
> having such a debate on Reddit, for example, would exclude people who
> don't use social media (anyone valuing their privacy and mental health),
> etc. IMHO there is no way to avoid that.
>

I think the point is not where the bias is, but how to facilitate new blood
in ffmpeg. While mailing list reviews may work well for you, there are
hundreds of developers that won't even get close to FFmpeg because they
cannot use git{lab,hub}, regardless of the pros or cons of email.

I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
both workflows, a main git{hub,lab} interface which can send and mirror the
discussion happening on the mailing list for those who prefer emails. Such
a project would be another good use of SPI funds.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
> both workflows
>

I agree with this.

Ronald
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
>> both workflows
>>
>
>I agree with this.

I vehemently disagree with this.

Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful thinking and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:

> Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
> accommodate
> >> both workflows
> >
> >I agree with this.
>
> I vehemently disagree with this.
>
> Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful thinking
> and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
>

Can you explain your disapproval? Is it that it needs work? Or money? Or do
you just think it's a bad idea? Or something else?

Ronald
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 3 mai 2024 14:28:59 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
>
>> Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>> >On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <
>> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
>> accommodate
>> >> both workflows
>> >
>> >I agree with this.
>>
>> I vehemently disagree with this.
>>
>> Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful thinking
>> and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
>>
>
>Can you explain your disapproval? Is it that it needs work? Or money? Or do
>you just think it's a bad idea? Or something else?

There is no technical plan how that would actually work in practice, and I don't think it is even feasible. Not to speak of a realistic plan who would actually implement it and in what time frame.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:33 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:

>
>
> Le 3 mai 2024 14:28:59 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <
> rsbultje@gmail.com>
> >> a écrit :
> >> >On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> >> vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
> >> accommodate
> >> >> both workflows
> >> >
> >> >I agree with this.
> >>
> >> I vehemently disagree with this.
> >>
> >> Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful
> thinking
> >> and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
> >>
> >
> >Can you explain your disapproval? Is it that it needs work? Or money? Or
> do
> >you just think it's a bad idea? Or something else?
>
> There is no technical plan how that would actually work in practice, and I
> don't think it is even feasible. Not to speak of a realistic plan who would
> actually implement it and in what time frame.
>

To clarify: I myself much prefer gitlab's workflow and would use that if it
was available. I think providing a CLI-based workflow (which Anton and some
others have requested) is feasible and fair. If an email variant thereof
can be made and someone wants to fund it, I think that's reasonable. But it
shouldn't block allowing more people to convert to a gitlab-style workflow,
which I consider far superior over what we have now. End of clarification.

Ronald
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 16.54.14 EEST Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> To clarify: I myself much prefer gitlab's workflow and would use that if it
> was available. I think providing a CLI-based workflow (which Anton and some
> others have requested) is feasible and fair. If an email variant thereof
> can be made and someone wants to fund it, I think that's reasonable. But it
> shouldn't block allowing more people to convert to a gitlab-style workflow,
> which I consider far superior over what we have now. End of clarification.

You can't have the cake and eat it. If we have to wait for a CLI workflow, for 
which no credible development plan exist, then we are stuck with email, and 
this is exactly "block[ing] allowing more prople to convert to a gitlab-style 
workflow".

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel]

> On May 3, 2024, at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:33 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is no technical plan how that would actually work in practice, and I
>> don't think it is even feasible. Not to speak of a realistic plan who would
>> actually implement it and in what time frame.
>> 
> 
> To clarify: I myself much prefer gitlab's workflow and would use that if it
> was available. I think providing a CLI-based workflow (which Anton and some
> others have requested) is feasible and fair. If an email variant thereof
> can be made and someone wants to fund it, I think that's reasonable. But it
> shouldn't block allowing more people to convert to a gitlab-style workflow,
> which I consider far superior over what we have now. End of clarification.

I think it's useful to separate out CLI-based workflow from email based workflow. 

For example with GitHub you can use the gh command line tool 
(https://github.com/cli/cli)  to do almost everything from the CLI. See outstanding 
pull requests, create a new pull request, check out a pull request, leave comments, 
approve, reject, etc. The only thing the official CLI tool itself doesn't offer is ability 
to add in-line comments.

If one really wants to avoid the browser for leaving in-line comments there are 
solutions integrated with popular editors to do this directly from the editor.

For those that like Neovim a full featured editor plugin like octo.nvim 
(https://github.com/pwntester/octo.nvim?tab=readme-ov-file#-pr-reviews)
can be used to do everything including code reviews with inline comments.

Similar solutions exist for Emacs. And the API is there to make something more 
customized if desired. For example a tool like "re" can open up $EDITOR and 
allow adding inline comments (https://github.com/jordanlewis/re).

This is for Github but Gitlab is popular enough that I'd expect the same to exist
there or at a minimum to be possible to bridge the gap (in general the github tooling
is more mature).

What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based workflow 
we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or gitlab.
Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to see if those
that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based workflows.

- Cosmin





_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

Hi

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +0000, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
[...]
> What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based workflow 
> we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or gitlab.
> Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to see if those
> that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based workflows.

Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.

I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
prefer to work through their web browser to do so.

also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
for 2025 for STF.
We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:28:03PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +0000, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> [...]
> > What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based workflow 
> > we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or gitlab.
> > Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to see if those
> > that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based workflows.
> 
> Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
> There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.
> 
> I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
> feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
> between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
> prefer to work through their web browser to do so.
> 
> also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
> for 2025 for STF.
> We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
> one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.
> 
> thx

It seems like the strongest argument for sticking with the ML is from
experienced maintainers who don't want to jeopardise their existing
workflow; while the strongest argument for switching is from people
itching to try out new workflows.  So how about this for a plan...

Make a repo on SourceHut, not necessarily for FFmpeg itself but for
automated review tools (running fate tests, checking C11 compliance
etc.).  Their CI/CD system automatically runs those tests on every
patch, then we manually forward genuine issues to the ML.  That would
let experimenters show off new things, and would let maintainers
think through what their workflow would look like in a mixed
environment.  Then when we've got enough evidence to make a long-term
plan, we can wind the repo down without too much fuss.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 4 May 2024, at 23:25, Andrew Sayers wrote:

> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:28:03PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +0000, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>> [...]
>>> What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based workflow
>>> we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or gitlab.
>>> Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to see if those
>>> that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based workflows.
>>
>> Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
>> There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.
>>
>> I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
>> feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
>> between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
>> prefer to work through their web browser to do so.
>>
>> also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
>> for 2025 for STF.
>> We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
>> one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.
>>
>> thx
>
> It seems like the strongest argument for sticking with the ML is from
> experienced maintainers who don't want to jeopardise their existing
> workflow; while the strongest argument for switching is from people
> itching to try out new workflows.  So how about this for a plan...
>
> Make a repo on SourceHut, not necessarily for FFmpeg itself but for
> automated review tools (running fate tests, checking C11 compliance
> etc.).  Their CI/CD system automatically runs those tests on every
> patch, then we manually forward genuine issues to the ML.  That would
> let experimenters show off new things, and would let maintainers
> think through what their workflow would look like in a mixed
> environment.  Then when we've got enough evidence to make a long-term
> plan, we can wind the repo down without too much fuss.

I hardly see how SourceHut would improve much of any of the actual
struggles we talked about in this thread tbh…

FWIW what most people are desiring is better review workflow/tooling
than a mail client can not offer (easily) and making it easier for
people to contribute by simply pushing a branch to their fork
which is for better or worse what a lot of people are familiar with
from GitHub.

Both of which is nothing SourceHut offers, to my knowledge.

So rather than spend efforts on something that only marginally improves
upon what is currently used it would IMHO be way more useful to evaluate
something like GitLab or Gitea/Forgejo.

> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Zhao Zhili]

> 在 2024年5月5日，上午5:51，epirat07@gmail.com 写道：
> 
> 
> 
>> On 4 May 2024, at 23:25, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:28:03PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +0000, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based workflow
>>>> we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or gitlab.
>>>> Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to see if those
>>>> that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based workflows.
>>> 
>>> Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
>>> There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.
>>> 
>>> I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
>>> feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
>>> between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
>>> prefer to work through their web browser to do so.
>>> 
>>> also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
>>> for 2025 for STF.
>>> We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
>>> one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.
>>> 
>>> thx
>> 
>> It seems like the strongest argument for sticking with the ML is from
>> experienced maintainers who don't want to jeopardise their existing
>> workflow; while the strongest argument for switching is from people
>> itching to try out new workflows.

It’s not “try out new workflows”, but current workflow is inefficient and unbearable for some of us.

>> So how about this for a plan...
>> 
>> Make a repo on SourceHut, not necessarily for FFmpeg itself but for
>> automated review tools (running fate tests, checking C11 compliance
>> etc.).  Their CI/CD system automatically runs those tests on every
>> patch, then we manually forward genuine issues to the ML.  That would
>> let experimenters show off new things, and would let maintainers
>> think through what their workflow would look like in a mixed
>> environment.  Then when we've got enough evidence to make a long-term
>> plan, we can wind the repo down without too much fuss.
> 
> I hardly see how SourceHut would improve much of any of the actual
> struggles we talked about in this thread tbh…
> 
> FWIW what most people are desiring is better review workflow/tooling
> than a mail client can not offer (easily) and making it easier for
> people to contribute by simply pushing a branch to their fork
> which is for better or worse what a lot of people are familiar with
> from GitHub.
> 
> Both of which is nothing SourceHut offers, to my knowledge.
> 
> So rather than spend efforts on something that only marginally improves
> upon what is currently used it would IMHO be way more useful to evaluate
> something like GitLab or Gitea/Forgejo.

+1

> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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".
> _______________________________________________
> 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".

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 7:44 PM CEST, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > You will get similar selection bias anywhere else. Even if you handled
> > such a conversation on a discussion site, the technology powering such
> > site will influence what kind of people use it. While discussing this
> > here likely excludes people who don't know how to use a mailing list,
> > having such a debate on Reddit, for example, would exclude people who
> > don't use social media (anyone valuing their privacy and mental health),
> > etc. IMHO there is no way to avoid that.
> >
>
> I think the point is not where the bias is, but how to facilitate new blood
> in ffmpeg. While mailing list reviews may work well for you, there are
> hundreds of developers that won't even get close to FFmpeg because they
> cannot use git{lab,hub}, regardless of the pros or cons of email.
Yeah, that's true.

> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
> both workflows, a main git{hub,lab} interface which can send and mirror the
> discussion happening on the mailing list for those who prefer emails. Such
> a project would be another good use of SPI funds.
I can see the value in that; but I still feel like SourceHut has some valuable
features over the current setup: a unified interface, not having to sign up
anywhere to contribute or comment on issues, and a significantly friendlier
UI for the mailing list archive. I believe it should be considered even if just
as an upgrade for the "email people".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

tor 2024-05-02 klockan 13:44 -0400 skrev Vittorio Giovara:
> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
> accommodate
> both workflows, a main git{hub,lab} interface which can send and
> mirror the
> discussion happening on the mailing list for those who prefer emails.
> Such
> a project would be another good use of SPI funds.

If you want email, use email. While a point could be made that bridging
mailing list workflows and say gitlab would be useful, the fact that a
mailing list is "free form" will almost surely result in nearly
insurmountable impedance mismatches.

This said, I'm not opposed to switching workflow to say gitlab, though
personally I wish gitlab stopped requiring jabbascript. Gitea is better
in this regard.

Finally, email has staying power.

/Tomas
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
>
> I would really suggest you look at SourceHut.

While SourceHut might be a slight improvement over the current
situation (and only slight), it being fundamentally still based on
email makes it inherit a lot of limitations and problems, and the
functionality of the web interface is severely lacking, as key
functions like commenting on patches are relegated back to your email
client.
Patch display functionality isn't any better then a mail client with a
bit of syntax highlighting, nevermind bespoke review tools that are
entirely absent, as it just sends you to your email client to respond.

At least thats what I see when checking the SourceHut instance of
SourceHut itself.

As far as solutions go, this isn't one that I would imagine, I'm
afraid. It's essentially a mailing list with patchwork. We have that
now.

- Hendrik
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 2:11 AM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
> >
> > I would really suggest you look at SourceHut.
>
> While SourceHut might be a slight improvement over the current
> situation (and only slight), it being fundamentally still based on
> email makes it inherit a lot of limitations and problems, and the
> functionality of the web interface is severely lacking, as key
> functions like commenting on patches are relegated back to your email
> client.
I think that's sort of the point, that you don't need a modern web
browser to do code review. The web interface is meant to supplement
email in the process, not replace it.

> Patch display functionality isn't any better then a mail client with a
> bit of syntax highlighting, nevermind bespoke review tools that are
> entirely absent, as it just sends you to your email client to respond.
Personally I don't see much added value in GitHub's pull request model
compared to inline comments on patches in an email thread, but I suppose
that's probably not what you're comparing SourceHut against here. Perhaps
you could list the "bespoke review tools" whose features you're missing
explicitly?

> At least thats what I see when checking the SourceHut instance of
> SourceHut itself.
>
> As far as solutions go, this isn't one that I would imagine, I'm
> afraid. It's essentially a mailing list with patchwork. We have that
> now.
I read someone complain that it's difficult to see which patches were
accepted with patchwork. I didn't verify whether that's true, but it's
certainly not an issue when using SourceHut.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 8:49 PM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
>
> On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 2:11 AM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would really suggest you look at SourceHut.
> >
> > While SourceHut might be a slight improvement over the current
> > situation (and only slight), it being fundamentally still based on
> > email makes it inherit a lot of limitations and problems, and the
> > functionality of the web interface is severely lacking, as key
> > functions like commenting on patches are relegated back to your email
> > client.
> I think that's sort of the point, that you don't need a modern web
> browser to do code review. The web interface is meant to supplement
> email in the process, not replace it.

I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.

- Hendrik
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
>
> - Hendrik
I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.

But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
are you missing? I am just really curious, as I have less experience with
open-source development than you.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Hi,

Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
>On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
>> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
>> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
>>
>> - Hendrik
>I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
>Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
>do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.

I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.

Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people don't send patches that way.

>But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
>are you missing?

Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and expand context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
> >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> >>
> >> - Hendrik
> >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
>
> I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how you
> slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today. Many email clients
have support for threading, and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary
depth. Using such a client with commands for moving between messages in a
a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite usably in my opinion.

> Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people don't
> send patches that way.
How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can* actually
dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

> >But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
> >are you missing?
>
> Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and expand
> context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
I can sort of understand everything except the last one. What is "a proper
listing of open MR" supposed to mean...? (I know what a merge request is,
of course, but I don't get how the way GitLab lists them is supposedly
superior to SourceHut's list of patches.)
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a 
écrit :
> > >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> > >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> > >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> > >> 
> > >> - Hendrik
> > >
> > >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> > >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> > >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
> > 
> > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> 
> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.

And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
That's the whole point.

Maybe (probably) email is better than any other tool that was not meant for 
code review, but not than a dedicated tool. But to claim that email is better 
for code review that dedicated tools is very highly disingenuous. People 
wouldn't have spent so much effort developping those tools, and they would not 
be so popular.

> Many email clients have support for threading,

No, they don't. Email threading is *not* the same as code review threading. 
And then email clients also can't track open/closed states.

> and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary depth.

I don't care because *GitHub* is out of the race for other reasons anyway. I 
have never had a situation whence *Gitlab* refused to add more comments to a 
thread.

> Using such a client with commands for moving between
> messages in a a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite
> usably in my opinion.

So how do I ask my mail agent to pull more existing code for context? Or to 
get back to the code that started a thread?

> > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
> > don't send patches that way.
> 
> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> has support for external clients over SMTP.

Simply put: no, that is simply not true.

Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good 
reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.

You are just being unwittingly elistist here.

> And I believe you *can* actually
> dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
> mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails and
> auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

Yes but then those people can't contribute at all.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> > 
> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>
> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
> That's the whole point.
This argument can actually go in both directions since the Web and web
browsers weren't meant for performing code review either. If you remember,
the Web was originally intended for sharing *documents*, which a MR page
on GitLab definitely isn't.

IMHO, the fact that something was intended for some use case does not imply
that it's actually good for that use case. My point was that what it was
meant for does not matter, what's important is if and how well it works
for that use case.

> > and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary depth.
>
> I don't care because *GitHub* is out of the race for other reasons anyway. I 
> have never had a situation whence *Gitlab* refused to add more comments to a 
> thread.
I said *depth*, not *length*. AFAIK GitLab can't create message threads like:

  message
  |- reply
  |  |- reply 
  |  |  '- reply
  |  '- reply
  '- reply
     '- reply

> > Using such a client with commands for moving between
> > messages in a a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite
> > usably in my opinion.
>
> So how do I ask my mail agent to pull more existing code for context? Or to 
> get back to the code that started a thread?
Why would you do that in a mail client? You have your personal copy of the
repo, so you can just import the patch by piping it to `git am` and then
use any of the wide array of git-supporting *specialized code review software*
to look at the changes!

Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client
can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used
to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic shell
scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things.

Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put together
a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a patch
and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other things to
adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a demo;
I am sure you could come up with something better.

[1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends

It's just sway, aerc, and a fuzzy picker combined. The command "changes" is just:
  changes() {
      while p="$(git diff --name-only origin/master | pick)"; do
          git diff -U9999999 origin/master "$p"
      done
  }

> > > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
> > > don't send patches that way.
> > 
> > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> > has support for external clients over SMTP.
>
> Simply put: no, that is simply not true.
>
> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good 
> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.
>
> You are just being unwittingly elistist here.
I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be
when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such
issues.

But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from
email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember how
I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a Firefox
fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you don't
care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app"
that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is excluded.
When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to download
mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I
wouldn't bother.

So how is that any different?

I think the solution to the email issues you mentioned could be to have the
ability to upload patches through the SourceHut UI directly. Since SourceHut
is still not feature-finished AFAIK, it could actually be added if there was
enough interest.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 2 May 2024, at 21:32, Ondřej Fiala wrote:

> On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
>>> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>>> I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
>>>> you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
>>>
>>> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>>
>> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
>> That's the whole point.
> This argument can actually go in both directions since the Web and web
> browsers weren't meant for performing code review either. If you remember,
> the Web was originally intended for sharing *documents*, which a MR page
> on GitLab definitely isn't.
>
> IMHO, the fact that something was intended for some use case does not imply
> that it's actually good for that use case. My point was that what it was
> meant for does not matter, what's important is if and how well it works
> for that use case.
>
>>> and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary depth.
>>
>> I don't care because *GitHub* is out of the race for other reasons anyway. I
>> have never had a situation whence *Gitlab* refused to add more comments to a
>> thread.
> I said *depth*, not *length*. AFAIK GitLab can't create message threads like:
>
>   message
>   |- reply
>   |  |- reply
>   |  |  '- reply
>   |  '- reply
>   '- reply
>      '- reply
>
>>> Using such a client with commands for moving between
>>> messages in a a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite
>>> usably in my opinion.
>>
>> So how do I ask my mail agent to pull more existing code for context? Or to
>> get back to the code that started a thread?
> Why would you do that in a mail client? You have your personal copy of the
> repo, so you can just import the patch by piping it to `git am` and then
> use any of the wide array of git-supporting *specialized code review software*
> to look at the changes!

How do I see the review comments that way?

>
> Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client
> can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used
> to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic shell
> scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things.

So I first have to get proficient in some shell scripting gymnastics
(and also switch to a completely different terminal-based mail client)
so I can do proper reviews?

Thats incredibly gatekeeping.

>
> Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put together
> a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a patch
> and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other things to
> adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a demo;
> I am sure you could come up with something better.
>
> [1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends

That seems to download some binary file? I have no idea what it is supposed to be.

>
> It's just sway, aerc, and a fuzzy picker combined. The command "changes" is just:
>   changes() {
>       while p="$(git diff --name-only origin/master | pick)"; do
>           git diff -U9999999 origin/master "$p"
>       done
>   }
>
>>>> Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
>>>> attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
>>>> don't send patches that way.
>>>
>>> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
>>> has support for external clients over SMTP.
>>
>> Simply put: no, that is simply not true.
>>
>> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good
>> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.
>>
>> You are just being unwittingly elistist here.
> I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be
> when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such
> issues.
>
> But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from
> email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember how
> I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a Firefox
> fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you don't
> care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app"
> that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is excluded.
> When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to download
> mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I
> wouldn't bother.
>
> So how is that any different?

How is it different to download a well maintained recent software and open a website,
in comparison to learn how to setup a (complex) combination of tools just to be able
to easily contribute?

>
> I think the solution to the email issues you mentioned could be to have the
> ability to upload patches through the SourceHut UI directly. Since SourceHut
> is still not feature-finished AFAIK, it could actually be added if there was
> enough interest.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 10:06 PM CEST, epirat07 wrote:
> On 2 May 2024, at 21:32, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> > Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client
> > can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used
> > to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic shell
> > scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things.
>
> So I first have to get proficient in some shell scripting gymnastics
Are you serious that as an open-source dev, you can't even write such a
trivial shell function?

> (and also switch to a completely different terminal-based mail client)
> so I can do proper reviews?
You can use any mail client that works well for you, I just showed what I
personally like. I remember seeing Greg KH (IIRC) using mutt for the same
purpose and I am sure it worked well for him as well. This is quite unlike
the GitHub/GitLab situation where if you use anything other than a recent
mainstream browser, it does not work AT ALL.

> Thats incredibly gatekeeping.
Hardly.

> > Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put together
> > a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a patch
> > and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other things to
> > adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a demo;
> > I am sure you could come up with something better.
> >
> > [1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends
>
> That seems to download some binary file? I have no idea what it is supposed to be.
Sorry about that; the site picked the filename and I forgot to say that it's an mkv
file. Just save it with an `.mkv` suffix and play it with ffplay or similar.

> >> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good
> >> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.
> >>
> >> You are just being unwittingly elistist here.
> > I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be
> > when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such
> > issues.
> >
> > But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from
> > email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember how
> > I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a Firefox
> > fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you don't
> > care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app"
> > that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is excluded.
> > When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to download
> > mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I
> > wouldn't bother.
> >
> > So how is that any different?
>
> How is it different to download a well maintained recent software and open a website,
> in comparison to learn how to setup a (complex) combination of tools just to be able
> to easily contribute?
It's not a complex combination; it's just git, an email client, and standard
command line tooling.

But sure, if you don't even know basic shell, it might seem complex. I assumed
anyone contributing to a C library with accompanying command-line utilities
would know such basics.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 2 mai 2024 22:32:16 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
>On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
>> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
>> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
>> > 
>> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>>
>> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
>> That's the whole point.
>This argument can actually go in both directions

No, it can't.

> Since the Web and web
>browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.

I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous. Your OS was originally meant to run bash, not a mail client, by that logic.

And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:46 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le 2 mai 2024 22:32:16 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
> >On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> >> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> >> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> >> > 
> >> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
> >>
> >> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
> >> That's the whole point.
> >This argument can actually go in both directions
>
> No, it can't.
I wish your replies were more constructive.

> > Since the Web and web
> >browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.
>
> I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web
> applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous.
A web application is just a bunch of JavaScript and/or Web Assembly
running in a web browser that supports it. The technologies that these
"applications" rely on are often available only in latest mainstream
browsers, everyone else is excluded. I experienced such exclusion first
hand in the past, which I mentioned in the email you're replying to.

I really don't see how I am being ridiculous by pointing that out.

> Your OS was originally meant to run bash, not a mail client, by that logic.
I really don't see how that follows the same logic, since a general purpose
OS is meant to run anything you want it to (that's the meaning of "general
purpose"), while a web browser was originally meant to, guess what, browse
the web.

Besides, the first version of Linux was released in 1991 and email existed
for many years at that time already.

> And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code
> review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing
> code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
Because your "optimizations" will make contributing to ffmpeg significantly
harder for people like me.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:46 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Since the Web and web
> >browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.
>
> I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web
> applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous.
By the way, speaking of ridiculous, I really recommend you read this:
https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 3 mai 2024 15:58:50 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
>On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:46 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le 2 mai 2024 22:32:16 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
>> >On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> >> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
>> >> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> >> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
>> >> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>> >>
>> >> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
>> >> That's the whole point.
>> >This argument can actually go in both directions
>>
>> No, it can't.
>I wish your replies were more constructive

Then don't make ridiculously extreme arguments.

>> > Since the Web and web
>> >browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.
>>
>> I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web
>> applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous.
>A web application is just a bunch of JavaScript and/or Web Assembly
>running in a web browser that supports it.

By that logic, your mail client is just a bunch of C or C++ files compiled together, and your processor is just a bunch of VHDL synthesised into silicon. This is called a reduction to absurd fallacy.

I don't care how much you despise web development. That doesn't change the *fact* that Gitlab is designed to manage code reviews and merges and mail clients are *not*.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 15.58.50 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code
> > review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing
> > code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
> 
> Because your "optimizations" will make contributing to ffmpeg significantly
> harder for people like me.

All they do is make the first contribution harder because you have to create an 
account on, and clone the repository within, the web forge. Considering the 
distribution between first-time contributions versus reviews and further-time 
contributions, that is a very obviously worthy tradeoff.

Note that I don't particularly prefer Gitlab vs email for submitting code. 
They both have their pros and cons, and I do not really like either of them. 
But Gitlab is so much easier for code review and merge, and it looks to me 
that the shortage of reviewers is even more pressing than developers here.


The argument that people can't use web forges because they require too 
powerful computer system is bollocks. A system that can't show the Gitlab 
frontend is not going to be able to compile FFmpeg, forget run the test suite, 
in any practical time frame. Not to deny that there are performance 
challenges, but those lie on the server side.

You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to run a 
web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer system.

-- 
レミ・デニ-クールモン
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 4:41 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 15.58.50 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > > And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code
> > > review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing
> > > code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
> > 
> > Because your "optimizations" will make contributing to ffmpeg significantly
> > harder for people like me.
>
> All they do is make the first contribution harder because you have to create an 
> account on, and clone the repository within, the web forge. Considering the 
> distribution between first-time contributions versus reviews and further-time 
> contributions, that is a very obviously worthy tradeoff.
>
> Note that I don't particularly prefer Gitlab vs email for submitting code. 
> They both have their pros and cons, and I do not really like either of them. 
> But Gitlab is so much easier for code review and merge, and it looks to me 
> that the shortage of reviewers is even more pressing than developers here.
Fair enough.

> You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to run a 
> web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer system.
There is a huge difference between running a web browser and running
Firefox/Chrome that you're consistently ignoring. I absolutely don't
mind running Lynx... :)
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 20.30.16 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to
> > run a web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer
> > system.
> There is a huge difference between running a web browser and running
> Firefox/Chrome that you're consistently ignoring. I absolutely don't
> mind running Lynx... :)

My point is that the requirement for *practical* *use* of an HTML5 web browser 
are lower than those for compiling, and running the test suite of, FFmpeg.

Sure you can run Links, W3M or NCSA Mosaic with a lot lower requirements, and 
Gitlab probably does not work under any of those. But the point is that 
Chromium or Firefox are *not* really limitting factors here.

-- 
レミ・デニ-クールモン
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:45 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 20.30.16 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > > You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to
> > > run a web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer
> > > system.
> > There is a huge difference between running a web browser and running
> > Firefox/Chrome that you're consistently ignoring. I absolutely don't
> > mind running Lynx... :)
>
> My point is that the requirement for *practical* *use* of an HTML5 web browser 
> are lower than those for compiling, and running the test suite of, FFmpeg.
Performance-wise, you're probably right. I was talking more about
the technological complexity and the fact we have this oligopoly
of a handful of browsers by companies who can afford supporting
their development and you have to use one of them to be able to use
these platforms.

Here again you're saying "HTML5 browser", but the fact is that they don't
work on all HTML5-supporting browsers because of how complex the tech is.

As I said before, GH for example didn't work for me on a well-maintained
(but niche) Firefox fork even though the fork actually did have support
for an impressive amount of modern web technologies, including HTML5. It
just didn't happen to have support for all of it, because frankly that's
impossible unless you're a big company like Mozilla or Google, and so it
didn't work.

The article I linked in a separate reply is a good overview of the immense
technological complexity of modern web tech.

> Sure you can run Links, W3M or NCSA Mosaic with a lot lower requirements, and 
> Gitlab probably does not work under any of those. But the point is that 
> Chromium or Firefox are *not* really limitting factors here.
GitLab is blocking anything that doesn't run JS due to its use of Cloudflare,
and even back when it didn't, not a single portion of it worked without JS
because it uses it for everything.

As I wrote at the beginning of this thread, Gitea is the most accessible
of GitHub-like platforms. It worked well in Pale Moon IIRC and all the
non-interactive parts of the UI (viewing files, issues, pull requests, etc.)
seem to work without JS. I wouldn't expect to be able to submit an issue or
a pull request this way, but it's better than GitHub and much better than
GitLab. Also its UI is faster than GitLab and feels more reasonable.

Please consider it instead of GitLab if you need to transition away from
mailing lists.. I haven't seen any mentions of GitLab features missing
from Gitea, anyway.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Zhao Zhili]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Ondřej Fiala
> Sent: 2024年5月2日 22:25
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> 
> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc> a écrit :
> > >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> > >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> > >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> > >>
> > >> - Hendrik
> > >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> > >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> > >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
> >
> > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how you
> > slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today. Many email clients
> have support for threading, and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary
> depth. Using such a client with commands for moving between messages in a
> a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite usably in my opinion.
> 
> > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people don't
> > send patches that way.
> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can* actually
> dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
> mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
> and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

I have tested a few email providers trying to find one which works with git
send-email. Some email providers blocked my emails because they don't know
git send-email and treat patches in email as spam.

And there are email client issues. Michael's email is blank in a very popular email
client. I reported the bug to the developer of that email client, they don't understand
the use case and have no interest to fix it.

I know a developer which have contributed to FFmpeg and stop doing so after
losing his git-send-email environment.

> 
> > >But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
> > >are you missing?
> >
> > Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and expand
> > context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
> I can sort of understand everything except the last one. What is "a proper
> listing of open MR" supposed to mean...? (I know what a merge request is,
> of course, but I don't get how the way GitLab lists them is supposedly
> superior to SourceHut's list of patches.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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".

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel]

> On May 2, 2024, at 9:35 AM, Zhao Zhili <quinkblack@foxmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I know a developer which have contributed to FFmpeg and stop doing so after
> losing his git-send-email environment.

I'm not surprised, getting git-send-email to work can be fairly daunting.

First you have to know enough about secure SMTP to know the difference 
between ports 465 and 587 and properly configuring SMTP encryption in 
git config (quick, which one is "tls" and which one is "ssl").

Then you may need to know enough about Perl to install some modules from 
CPAN, for example I always need to install Net::SMTP::SSL on a new machine.

Lastly you need to figure out how to integrate git with keychain on your 
particular platform to avoid having your email password in a plaintext file.

- Cosmin
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[flow gg]

I saw about comparing emails and gitlab/hub .., I did not comprehensively
understand their advantages and disadvantages, but I want to say that I
support it to change to gitlab/hub

Simple reason:

If you need to use git-send-email, I may not be able to submit any code
If you do not need to use git-send-email, it is troublesome for the
reviewer and the contributor

In detail:

I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area and
the network. It is really not what I can solve.
Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.

Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
as me, resulting in abandonment.

I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
reviewer of Review.

I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:

I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you are a
reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
some contributions.

> How can anyne use git, but not git send-email? Any develop email provider
HAS Support for External Clients Over SMTP. And I Believe You * Can *
Actually
Dictate that people doon't attach patches - if you have control over the
Mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
And auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

I think I should have the right to contribute

Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> 于2024年5月2日周四 22:25写道：

> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" <ofiala@airmail.cc>
> a écrit :
> > >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> > >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> > >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> > >>
> > >> - Hendrik
> > >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> > >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> > >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
> >
> > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> you
> > slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today. Many email
> clients
> have support for threading, and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary
> depth. Using such a client with commands for moving between messages in a
> a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite usably in my
> opinion.
>
> > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
> don't
> > send patches that way.
> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
> actually
> dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
> mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
> and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
>
> > >But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
> > >are you missing?
> >
> > Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and
> expand
> > context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
> I can sort of understand everything except the last one. What is "a proper
> listing of open MR" supposed to mean...? (I know what a merge request is,
> of course, but I don't get how the way GitLab lists them is supposedly
> superior to SourceHut's list of patches.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area and
> the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
>
> Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
> me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
> as me, resulting in abandonment.
I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based workflows
are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
reference.

With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git send-email
can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The replies
quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git send-email, I
was using completely average providers and it was all pretty effortless,
I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.

> I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
> are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> reviewer of Review.
>
> I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
>
> I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you are a
> reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
> some contributions.
>
> > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider                      
> > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*                            
> > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control
> > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such
> > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
> I think I should have the right to contribute
Likewise.

Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was specifically
reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use them,
which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it might have
sounded that way. Sorry about that.

As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot about
having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all parts of
a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text attachments
instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between attached
patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:

> On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> > I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> > but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area
> and
> > the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> > Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> > because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> > up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
> >
> > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people
> around
> > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same
> problem
> > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based
> workflows
> are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
> reference.
>
> With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git send-email
> can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The
> replies
> quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git send-email, I
> was using completely average providers and it was all pretty effortless,
> I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.
>
> > I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
> > are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> > reviewer of Review.
> >
> > I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
> >
> > I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you
> are a
> > reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
> > some contributions.
> >
> > > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email
> provider
> > > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
>
> > > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have
> control
> > > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects
> such
> > > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
> > I think I should have the right to contribute
> Likewise.
>
> Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was
> specifically
> reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use them,
> which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it might
> have
> sounded that way. Sorry about that.
>
> As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot
> about
> having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all parts
> of
> a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text
> attachments
> instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between
> attached
> patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
>

Is it me or has this thread and topic run its course?
We understand your preference is email and it is duly noted, the
overwhelming majority of the community still seem to prefer github/gitlab.
Any further discussion at this point looks off topic, there are better
venues for discussing the technical merits of email vs github/gitlab.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3988 bytes --]

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 02:04:16PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> > > I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> > > but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area
> > and
> > > the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> > > Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> > > because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> > > up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
> > >
> > > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people
> > around
> > > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same
> > problem
> > > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> > I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based
> > workflows
> > are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
> > reference.
> >
> > With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git send-email
> > can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The
> > replies
> > quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git send-email, I
> > was using completely average providers and it was all pretty effortless,
> > I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.
> >
> > > I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
> > > are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> > > reviewer of Review.
> > >
> > > I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
> > >
> > > I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you
> > are a
> > > reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
> > > some contributions.
> > >
> > > > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email
> > provider
> > > > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
> >
> > > > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have
> > control
> > > > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects
> > such
> > > > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
> > > I think I should have the right to contribute
> > Likewise.
> >
> > Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was
> > specifically
> > reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use them,
> > which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it might
> > have
> > sounded that way. Sorry about that.
> >
> > As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot
> > about
> > having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all parts
> > of
> > a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text
> > attachments
> > instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between
> > attached
> > patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
> >
> 
> Is it me or has this thread and topic run its course?
> We understand your preference is email and it is duly noted, the
> overwhelming majority of the community still seem to prefer github/gitlab.
> Any further discussion at this point looks off topic, there are better
> venues for discussing the technical merits of email vs github/gitlab.

Is it me or are the top 3 people who objected to gitlab on vaccation, banned
and busy ?
Maybe we should wait for them to have an oppertunity to comment. One of them
happens to be an experienced gitlab admin

thx

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

Homeopathy is like voting while filling the ballot out with transparent ink.
Sometimes the outcome one wanted occurs. Rarely its worse than filling out
a ballot properly.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 3:09 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 02:04:16PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ondřej Fiala <ofiala@airmail.cc> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> > > > I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am
> stupid,
> > > > but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my
> area
> > > and
> > > > the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> > > > Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this
> is
> > > > because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to
> give
> > > > up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people
> > > around
> > > > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same
> > > problem
> > > > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> > > I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based
> > > workflows
> > > are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
> > > reference.
> > >
> > > With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git
> send-email
> > > can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The
> > > replies
> > > quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git
> send-email, I
> > > was using completely average providers and it was all pretty
> effortless,
> > > I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.
> > >
> > > > I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think
> people
> > > > are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> > > > reviewer of Review.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
> > > >
> > > > I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you
> > > are a
> > > > reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have
> made
> > > > some contributions.
> > > >
> > > > > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email
> > > provider
> > > > > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
> > >
> > > > > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have
> > > control
> > > > > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that
> rejects
> > > such
> > > > > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them
> properly.
> > > > I think I should have the right to contribute
> > > Likewise.
> > >
> > > Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was
> > > specifically
> > > reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use
> them,
> > > which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it
> might
> > > have
> > > sounded that way. Sorry about that.
> > >
> > > As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot
> > > about
> > > having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all
> parts
> > > of
> > > a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text
> > > attachments
> > > instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between
> > > attached
> > > patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
> > >
> >
> > Is it me or has this thread and topic run its course?
> > We understand your preference is email and it is duly noted, the
> > overwhelming majority of the community still seem to prefer
> github/gitlab.
> > Any further discussion at this point looks off topic, there are better
> > venues for discussing the technical merits of email vs github/gitlab.
>
> Is it me or are the top 3 people who objected to gitlab on vaccation,
> banned
> and busy ?
> Maybe we should wait for them to have an oppertunity to comment. One of
> them
> happens to be an experienced gitlab admin
>

If one is banned, then they lose the chance to express their opinion in the
community, it's the whole point of being in a community! You act civil and
your opinions are heard, you troll and you get banned, pretty simple to me.
If we ban people and then wait for them to be unbanned before we take
decisions defeats the whole point of being banned, and instead brings in
pointless filibustering. Maybe they should behave better and not get banned
instead?

For the other two, I think at least one is ok to use command line tools to
my knowledge and that is good enough to at least experiment with a move.
Hopefully we won't stall the move because 3 people vs 238 community members
said so, or do you think we need a vote by the GA on this?

At any rate, my point was that the discussion on github vs email here is
done, nothing can be added to sway either side that wasn't already said.
Since we're starting to see the negative effects of this discussion (our
inability to effectively ban people, making people feel gatekept, and so
on) I'd say it'd be more beneficial to move the agree to disagree
discussion elsewhere, in my opinion.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1979 bytes --]

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:11:12AM +0800, flow gg wrote:
> I saw about comparing emails and gitlab/hub .., I did not comprehensively
> understand their advantages and disadvantages, but I want to say that I
> support it to change to gitlab/hub
> 
> Simple reason:
> 
> If you need to use git-send-email, I may not be able to submit any code
> If you do not need to use git-send-email, it is troublesome for the
> reviewer and the contributor
> 
> In detail:
> 
> I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area and
> the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.

if anyone needs to install get-send-email see:
https://git-send-email.io/

if you cannot use get-send-email. (misconfigured corporate firewalls?, north korea?)
you can create patches using git format-patch
to turn the last 2 commits into patches
git format-patch -2

then attach the created files to your mail or 2 mails, or just copy and paste them
inline into mails. Make sure your mail client doesnt do word wraping or
other whitespace "cleanup"

Thats all there is to it. get-send-email is recommanded (because its very
easy normally) but git will work perfectly fine without it


> 
> Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
> me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
> as me, resulting in abandonment.

if our guides about how to submit patches are bad, our guides need to be
fixed.

thx

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

Asymptotically faster algorithms should always be preferred if you have
asymptotical amounts of data

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Sat May 4, 2024 at 9:05 PM CEST, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:11:12AM +0800, flow gg wrote:
> > [...]
> > If you need to use git-send-email, I may not be able to submit any code
> > If you do not need to use git-send-email, it is troublesome for the
> > reviewer and the contributor
> > [...]
>
> [...]
> if you cannot use get-send-email. (misconfigured corporate firewalls?, north korea?)
> you can create patches using git format-patch
> [...]
> then attach the created files to your mail or 2 mails, [...]
>
> > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
> > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
> > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> [...]

Hi all,

I just noticed that the SourceHut UI actually allows GitHub-like "fork"
workflow to accomodate people who are unable to use git-send-email.

I found the following video demo:
https://smlavine.com/blog/sourcehut-web-ui/sourcehut-web-ui.webm

Of course, this doesn't resolve the concerns over PRs/MRs being supposedly
more efficient for code review than ML, but it does solve the accessibility
issues for both sides rather nicely IMHO.

~ OF
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
>Hi all
>
>The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>support for new codecs and formats.

OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at anything else.

Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most applications.

If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3984 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:11:36PM +0800, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
> >Hi all
> >
> >The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >support for new codecs and formats.
> 
> OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at anything else.
> 
> Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most applications.
> 
> If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.

I will disagree on this a bit

If we for a moment look at the commerical world (but its not fundamentally different in OSS)

Projects/Companies are created to fill some need, initially they
often need to concentarte on a narrow market because they dont have the
resources to do "everything" and if they try they go bankrupt.
Once they are established and have the resources they grow or they die

Microsoft started with a OS in 1985, added an office suite in 1990
internet explorer in 1995, xbox in 2001, Microsoft Azure in 2008
and you can fill in more.
Today Microsoft is one of the largest companies in teh world.

You can do the same with apple, google, or others.

OTOH pick any company of your choice that did not expand and compare.
for example kodak and not expanding out of analoge photogrpahy is an example

FFmpeg has over a billion users indirectly. Dont you (plural) see the
opertunity here to leverage this ?

Sure this examples are commerical companies and we are OSS.
But really its the same. A company lives and dies with its
revenue and profits in $.
OSS lives and dies with its users and developers.

developers largely dont find maintaining a "mature" codebase interresting
they do find it interresting to develop new things.

And what you wrote above
"FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at anything else."

yes. Iam not suggesting to have ffmpeg the applications suddenly do something entirely different
the same way as office doesnt suddenly become a internet browser.

What iam suggesting is that we should expend beyond ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe
beyond what our libraraies provide. And to leverage our quite large userbase

i know people dont like it but its a good example. If we added a ffchat
it immedeatly would have a large number of users.
It matters for a chat app, that there are people you can chat with havng the
same app.

You can pick something else, ffserver2 is a good example.

ffedit, a video editor for example

The situation is just bizare.
People complain on one hand that we lack new blood, we lack developers to maintain
the codebase. But then things that would bring in new blood and developers are
immedeatly opposed by 3 times more developers than are actually actively
working on FFmpeg.

We can and probably should switch to something more flashy than a pure ML
based development model with no good GUI access but thats not going to
make maintaining mature software sexy for new developers IMHO

thx

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

Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good.
Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart
than the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 21 avril 2024 23:40:08 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
>On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:11:36PM +0800, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
>> >Hi all
>> >
>> >The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>> >Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>> >support for new codecs and formats.
>> 
>> OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at anything else.
>> 
>> Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most applications.
>> 
>> If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.
>
>I will disagree on this a bit
>
>If we for a moment look at the commerical world (but its not fundamentally different in OSS)
>
>Projects/Companies are created to fill some need, initially they
>often need to concentarte on a narrow market because they dont have the
>resources to do "everything" and if they try they go bankrupt.
>Once they are established and have the resources they grow or they die
>
>Microsoft started with a OS in 1985, added an office suite in 1990
>internet explorer in 1995, xbox in 2001, Microsoft Azure in 2008
>and you can fill in more.
>Today Microsoft is one of the largest companies in teh world.

Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.

Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).

But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new innovation.

>You can do the same with apple, google, or others.

Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4499 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 03:12:59PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 21 avril 2024 23:40:08 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
> >On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:11:36PM +0800, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
> >> >Hi all
> >> >
> >> >The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >> >Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >> >support for new codecs and formats.
> >> 
> >> OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at anything else.
> >> 
> >> Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most applications.
> >> 
> >> If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.
> >
> >I will disagree on this a bit
> >
> >If we for a moment look at the commerical world (but its not fundamentally different in OSS)
> >
> >Projects/Companies are created to fill some need, initially they
> >often need to concentarte on a narrow market because they dont have the
> >resources to do "everything" and if they try they go bankrupt.
> >Once they are established and have the resources they grow or they die
> >
> >Microsoft started with a OS in 1985, added an office suite in 1990
> >internet explorer in 1995, xbox in 2001, Microsoft Azure in 2008
> >and you can fill in more.
> >Today Microsoft is one of the largest companies in teh world.
> 
> Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> 
> Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> 
> But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new innovation.

Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main repository, FFmpeg does

Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its not a seperate
product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from microsoft

microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the current latest OS.
There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.


> 
> >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> 
> Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.

of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a audio search
news, travel, shoping.
These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont know, i suspect
google search is very good at finding google products.
Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"

But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
Google Maps as first entry.

or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/


And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
Thats in stark contrast to
"FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new innovation"
when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.

I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or FFmpeg
will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that doesnt
have an opposition to innovation.

IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
2nd step would be a vote.

thx

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

The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped 
leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded 
you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows
> is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> >
> > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same
> legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> >
> > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> innovation.
>
> Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> repository, FFmpeg does
>
> Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its not
> a seperate
> product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> microsoft
>
> microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the current
> latest OS.
> There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
>
>
> >
> > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> >
> > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
>
> of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a audio
> search
> news, travel, shoping.
> These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont know, i
> suspect
> google search is very good at finding google products.
> Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
>
> But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> Google Maps as first entry.
>
> or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
>
>
> And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> Thats in stark contrast to
> "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> innovation"
> when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
>
> I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or FFmpeg
> will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that doesnt
> have an opposition to innovation.
>
> IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> 2nd step would be a vote.


You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a
service like google Maps are different products than the software that runs
them like FFmpeg. While for sure there can be innovation and radical new
design ideas in our project, the space for innovation is limited by the
intrinsic nature of the software, which is basically "multimedia
in/multimedia out". In other words you cannot make something like a social
network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
because it's impossible but because it's the wrong tool for the job -
likewise you can't make internet explorer a good multimedia low level
framework - there are other places to innovate with more freedom and fewer
requirements.

Most of the innovations I see the community ask for our project are mostly
non-technical, aka switching to a more user friendly patch system, have
stronger meaningful actions from the CC, and secure funding for larger
projects. These are all hard to do, even more so when the leadership stalls
any action out of fear of losing contributors. I hope we can find a good
compromise in the upcoming months.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4670 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:15:27AM -0700, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
> 
> > > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows
> > is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same
> > legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> > >
> > > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > innovation.
> >
> > Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> > repository, FFmpeg does
> >
> > Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its not
> > a seperate
> > product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> > microsoft
> >
> > microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the current
> > latest OS.
> > There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> > >
> > > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
> >
> > of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a audio
> > search
> > news, travel, shoping.
> > These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont know, i
> > suspect
> > google search is very good at finding google products.
> > Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
> >
> > But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> > Google Maps as first entry.
> >
> > or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
> >
> >
> > And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> > many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> > there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> > that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> > Thats in stark contrast to
> > "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > innovation"
> > when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> > iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
> >
> > I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or FFmpeg
> > will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that doesnt
> > have an opposition to innovation.
> >
> > IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> > people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> > 2nd step would be a vote.
> 
> 
> You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a

The examples i showed cover a wide range of software (An OS, A office suite,
A web browser, an AI assitent, a search engine, web apps, and more)
and hardware like a phone, services like cloud

For all of them its true that radical innovation was essential for success.

our multimedia framework is not a special case relative to above


> network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
> because it's impossible but

These sound like really bad ideas unrealated to innovation.


> because it's the wrong tool for the job -

IMHO, this is missing the point a bit

A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable by
voice communication.
Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
...

A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i have a deja vue feeling here

(and you can continue this list with software, hardware and services from other
 successfull companies, there is radical innovation everywhere)

our repository is also not just the ffmpeg tool, there are libraries and theres
ffmpeg, ffprobe, ffplay

FFmpeg is a whole multimedia framework and there are many things we could innovate
on.

Also, i agree its important to listen to what the users want. But often what they
ask for and what actually would help them most, can be different.

thx

[...]
-- 
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.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:24 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:15:27AM -0700, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer <
> michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But
> Windows
> > > is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> > > >
> > > > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the
> same
> > > legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> > > >
> > > > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical
> new
> > > innovation.
> > >
> > > Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> > > repository, FFmpeg does
> > >
> > > Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its
> not
> > > a seperate
> > > product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> > > microsoft
> > >
> > > microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the
> current
> > > latest OS.
> > > There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> > > >
> > > > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
> > >
> > > of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a
> audio
> > > search
> > > news, travel, shoping.
> > > These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont
> know, i
> > > suspect
> > > google search is very good at finding google products.
> > > Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
> > >
> > > But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> > > Google Maps as first entry.
> > >
> > > or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
> > >
> > >
> > > And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> > > many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> > > there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> > > that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> > > Thats in stark contrast to
> > > "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > > innovation"
> > > when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> > > iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
> > >
> > > I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or
> FFmpeg
> > > will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that
> doesnt
> > > have an opposition to innovation.
> > >
> > > IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> > > people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> > > 2nd step would be a vote.
> >
> >
> > You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a
>
> The examples i showed cover a wide range of software (An OS, A office
> suite,
> A web browser, an AI assitent, a search engine, web apps, and more)
> and hardware like a phone, services like cloud
>
> For all of them its true that radical innovation was essential for success.
>
> our multimedia framework is not a special case relative to above
>
>
> > network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
> > because it's impossible but
>
> These sound like really bad ideas unrealated to innovation.
>
>
> > because it's the wrong tool for the job -
>
> IMHO, this is missing the point a bit
>
> A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable
> by
> voice communication.
> Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
> Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
> Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
> ...
>
> A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
> maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
> its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
> its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
> its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i
> have a deja vue feeling here
>
> (and you can continue this list with software, hardware and services from
> other
>  successfull companies, there is radical innovation everywhere)
>
> our repository is also not just the ffmpeg tool, there are libraries and
> theres
> ffmpeg, ffprobe, ffplay
>
> FFmpeg is a whole multimedia framework and there are many things we could
> innovate
> on.
>
> Also, i agree its important to listen to what the users want. But often
> what they
> ask for and what actually would help them most, can be different.
>

This is many words to say that you're missing the point. Let me try in
social media format

You👏can't👏compare👏ffmpeg👏to👏the👏many👏projects👏you👏mentioned.

And please address the main innovation points that we need, reiterated here
- switching to a more user friendly patch system
- have stronger meaningful actions from the CC
- secure funding for larger projects

These are all hard to do, even more so when the leadership stalls any
action out of fear of losing contributors. Ignoring them won't do the
project any good
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7089 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 12:39:14PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:24 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:15:27AM -0700, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer <
> > michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But
> > Windows
> > > > is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the
> > same
> > > > legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> > > > >
> > > > > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical
> > new
> > > > innovation.
> > > >
> > > > Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> > > > repository, FFmpeg does
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its
> > not
> > > > a seperate
> > > > product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> > > > microsoft
> > > >
> > > > microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the
> > current
> > > > latest OS.
> > > > There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
> > > >
> > > > of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a
> > audio
> > > > search
> > > > news, travel, shoping.
> > > > These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont
> > know, i
> > > > suspect
> > > > google search is very good at finding google products.
> > > > Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
> > > >
> > > > But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> > > > Google Maps as first entry.
> > > >
> > > > or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> > > > many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> > > > there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> > > > that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> > > > Thats in stark contrast to
> > > > "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > > > innovation"
> > > > when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> > > > iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
> > > >
> > > > I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or
> > FFmpeg
> > > > will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that
> > doesnt
> > > > have an opposition to innovation.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> > > > people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> > > > 2nd step would be a vote.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a
> >
> > The examples i showed cover a wide range of software (An OS, A office
> > suite,
> > A web browser, an AI assitent, a search engine, web apps, and more)
> > and hardware like a phone, services like cloud
> >
> > For all of them its true that radical innovation was essential for success.
> >
> > our multimedia framework is not a special case relative to above
> >
> >
> > > network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
> > > because it's impossible but
> >
> > These sound like really bad ideas unrealated to innovation.
> >
> >
> > > because it's the wrong tool for the job -
> >
> > IMHO, this is missing the point a bit
> >
> > A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable
> > by
> > voice communication.
> > Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
> > Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
> > Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
> > ...
> >
> > A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
> > maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
> > its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
> > its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
> > its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i
> > have a deja vue feeling here
> >
> > (and you can continue this list with software, hardware and services from
> > other
> >  successfull companies, there is radical innovation everywhere)
> >
> > our repository is also not just the ffmpeg tool, there are libraries and
> > theres
> > ffmpeg, ffprobe, ffplay
> >
> > FFmpeg is a whole multimedia framework and there are many things we could
> > innovate
> > on.
> >
> > Also, i agree its important to listen to what the users want. But often
> > what they
> > ask for and what actually would help them most, can be different.
> >
> 
> This is many words to say that you're missing the point. Let me try in
> social media format
> 

> You👏can't👏compare👏ffmpeg👏to👏the👏many👏projects👏you👏mentioned.

I dont agree but we can pick more similar projects

compare to gimp
decade(s) ago i looked at adobe photoshop and gimp.
photoshop was intuitive and easy to use, gimp was unintuitive and a pain even though
technically it was probably not lacking features that much.

Today gimp is unchanged its user interface has marginally improved only,
though gimp is a active and alive project. (and btw i love and use gimp)
The most trivial things photohop could do 20 years ago, for gimp I still
have no clue without google "how to".
For some usecases gimp has also been replaced already by krita

FFmpeg will be the same. If we cant fix the issues we have.
*  a community that doesnt want to let contributors work on what they want
   the way they want (a fix are plugins)
*  infighting, groups of people fighting each other.
   (a fix may be to seperate the repository and merge peoples work, in a
   friendly cooperative way)

now compare to the linux kernel
It uses mailing lists
It is not a "nice" environment, people say what is to be said.
linux is not affraid to innovate to abadon tradition where new things
need to be tried.
linux is strong as ever

If you want to be like linux you need to be like linux.


[...]

> - secure funding for larger projects

what project you want to get funding for ?
A wide range of things are funded, and last i asked when STF money was available
i couldnt even find enough people willing to submit a project to reach 150k €

hint hint: there is 2025 and we need maintaince projects to submit to STF in 2025

thx

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

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance,
they as if into a greater darkness enter who devote themselves
to the Knowledge alone. -- Isha Upanishad

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 4:35 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> > - secure funding for larger projects
>
> what project you want to get funding for ?
> A wide range of things are funded, and last i asked when STF money was
> available
> i couldnt even find enough people willing to submit a project to reach
> 150k €
>
> hint hint: there is 2025 and we need maintaince projects to submit to STF
> in 2025
>

move the infrastructure and review process to github/gitlab/gitea/forgeio
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le lauantaina 4. toukokuuta 2024, 23.35.34 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> now compare to the linux kernel
> It uses mailing lists

Sorry but that is at best misleading, and at worse, plain wrong.

The top-level work flow for the Linux kernel is neither mailing list, nor web 
forge, but CLI pull/merge. The mailing list is used to discuss and to notify 
pending merge requests.

As far as I know, some subgroups still use mailing list for actual patch 
submission and review, and some subgroups have already switched to web forges. 
And there are people complaining about the difficulty and exclusivity of the 
mailing list-based flow.

> linux is not affraid to innovate to abadon tradition where new things
> need to be tried.

Well, yes, and accordingly some of the Linux maintainers have switched to web 
forges, AFAIU.

> linux is strong as ever

This is hardly a point of comparison. Linux gets support from hardware design 
and vending companies as well as from large users. Linux is pretty much an 
exception more than a rule in the overall OSS ecosystem.

If you want to compare FFmpeg, take a low-level middleware project of similar 
age and size. For instance, QEMU switched to Gitlab.com a few years ago.

> If you want to be like linux you need to be like linux.

FFmpeg cannot and never will be like Linux. This is a silly argument. Nobody 
suggested moving FFmpeg to a tiered merge flow like what Linus Torvalds uses. 
The scale and scope of Linux is just so much larger.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 10:14 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:

> Le lauantaina 4. toukokuuta 2024, 23.35.34 EEST Michael Niedermayer a
> écrit :
> > now compare to the linux kernel
> > It uses mailing lists
>
> Sorry but that is at best misleading, and at worse, plain wrong.
>
> The top-level work flow for the Linux kernel is neither mailing list, nor
> web
> forge, but CLI pull/merge. The mailing list is used to discuss and to
> notify
> pending merge requests.
>
> As far as I know, some subgroups still use mailing list for actual patch
> submission and review, and some subgroups have already switched to web
> forges.
> And there are people complaining about the difficulty and exclusivity of
> the
> mailing list-based flow.
>
> > linux is not affraid to innovate to abadon tradition where new things
> > need to be tried.
>
> Well, yes, and accordingly some of the Linux maintainers have switched to
> web
> forges, AFAIU.
>
> > linux is strong as ever
>
> This is hardly a point of comparison. Linux gets support from hardware
> design
> and vending companies as well as from large users. Linux is pretty much an
> exception more than a rule in the overall OSS ecosystem.
>
> If you want to compare FFmpeg, take a low-level middleware project of
> similar
> age and size. For instance, QEMU switched to Gitlab.com a few years ago.
>
> > If you want to be like linux you need to be like linux.
>
> FFmpeg cannot and never will be like Linux. This is a silly argument.
> Nobody
> suggested moving FFmpeg to a tiered merge flow like what Linus Torvalds
> uses.
> The scale and scope of Linux is just so much larger.
>

Merge SDR into FFmpeg, FFmpeg scale and scope, suddenly becomes now much
higher than it was before.

If the project wants to stay relatively relevant and absolutely non-obscure
than it shall just keep continuing current policy of not accepting real new
features,
like native decoders and native demuxers and native filters, and keep only
funding maintenance work, also keep gate-keeping certain contributors,
also splitting contributors into different groups and polarizing those
groups by valuing them differently,
also associating some project contributors into new agencies where
contributing values back to the project is not main factor,
also doing questionable refactoring of working code with results of
questionable performance changes and questionable refactored code design
and quality,
also generally ignoring regressions and new or old bug and feature-request
user's reports,
also leaving the project fast without any notice for selfish reasons,
also using communication prone to different interpretations,
also not valuing new research and better and faster algorithms,
also still associating self as the project developer when major last
contribution to the project was in previous decade,
also not properly valuing writing native solutions that are better than
current state of art available in open source or in general,
also using real-life meetings between selected contributors for ensuring
unrelated personal business growth and/or increasing self net-worth for
selfish reasons,
also using obscure social-channels while attempting to raise the project
relevance and ensure future funding for the project to keep personal
business alive,
also not maintaining current infrastructure and investing in new
infrastructure to reduce new regressions and bugs popping up,
also labeling and name-calling and discrediting other contributors and even
their work for selfish and short-sighted reasons,
also accepting only some radically and obscurely strict technical process
of contributing and also labeling and alienating developers and developing
process non-conforming with that technical process.

This is the project recipe for success and relevance growth and fast
advance in popularity and real progress moving forward and for healthy and
prolific project future at all dimensions and fronts.


>
> --
> Rémi Denis-Courmont
> http://www.remlab.net/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Sat Apr 27, 2024 at 12:24 PM CEST, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable by
> voice communication.
> Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
> Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
> Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
> ...
>
> A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
> maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
> its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
> its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
> its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i have a deja vue feeling here

And arguably both of them are terrible at these additional tasks.
I will take my terminal-based email client over a web browser any day,
thank you. To quote Doug McIlroy:
> Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> support for new codecs and formats.
> 
> Should we
> * make a list of longer term goals
> * vote on them
> * and then together work towards implementing them
> ?
> 
> (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> to a previously agreed goal.
> And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> 
> (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> 
> Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> 
> * Switch to a plugin architecture
>      (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
>       friction as the team and community grows)
> * ffchat
>      (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>      bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>      all parts for it already but some people where against it
> * client side / in browser support
>      (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
>      bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>      if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>      The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
>      neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> * [your idea here]

A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern 
streaming in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
But this only if it gets a maintainer that can update it if needed when 
APIs are added or replaced.

> 
> thx
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...] 
> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.

If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
association with the old incompatible tool .
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne]

Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefasab@gmail.com:

> On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
>> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
>>
>
> If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
> the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
> be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
> association with the old incompatible tool .
>

That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
but that was largely the case that ffserver had.

What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
AVTransport can largely fill that niche.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:32:27PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefasab@gmail.com:
> 
> > On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
> >> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
> >>
> >
> > If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
> > the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
> > be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
> > association with the old incompatible tool .
> >
> 
> That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
> and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
> multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
> ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
> It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
> but that was largely the case that ffserver had.
> 
> What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
> it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
> the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
> AVTransport can largely fill that niche.

hmm
how would we (assert(people agreeing)) go from what you describe
to a (very easy to use) ffserver "2.0" in something on the ffmpeg.org download page
?

thx

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

The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped 
leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded 
you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2494 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 07:42:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:32:27PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> > Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefasab@gmail.com:
> > 
> > > On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > >>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
> > >> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
> > >>
> > >
> > > If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
> > > the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
> > > be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
> > > association with the old incompatible tool .
> > >
> > 
> > That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
> > and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
> > multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
> > ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
> > It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
> > but that was largely the case that ffserver had.
> > 
> > What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
> > it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
> > the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
> > AVTransport can largely fill that niche.
> 
> hmm
> how would we (assert(people agreeing)) go from what you describe
> to a (very easy to use) ffserver "2.0" in something on the ffmpeg.org download page
> ?

also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for ffserver
than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for ffserver
than txproto.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=txproto,ffserver

So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
users

And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
sub projects.

We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.
We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.
We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.
...



thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Nicolas George]

Michael Niedermayer (12024-06-17):
> also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for ffserver
> than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for ffserver
> than txproto.
> 
> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=txproto,ffserver
> 
> So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
> users
> 
> And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
> FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
> sub projects.
> 
> We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.
> We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.
> We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.
> ...

Hear! Hear! 

I would add, as general guiding principles:

We should provide both low- and high-level APIs. Ideally, the fftools
should be just user interface around the high-level APIs provided by the
libraries.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 9:01 PM Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> Michael Niedermayer (12024-06-17):
> > also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for
> ffserver
> > than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for
> ffserver
> > than txproto.
> >
> > https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=txproto,ffserver
> >
> > So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
> > users
> >
> > And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
> > FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
> > sub projects.
> >
> > We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.
> > We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.
> > We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.
> > ...
>
> Hear! Hear!
>
> I would add, as general guiding principles:
>
> We should provide both low- and high-level APIs. Ideally, the fftools
> should be just user interface around the high-level APIs provided by the
> libraries.


Patches welcome? Not that it means anything, but you had exactly 2 lines on
ffserver before it got removed, so I wonder who exactly you think should be
maintaining all that cruft code (honest question, if you have a real plan
for solving this ageless problem I think many people on the ML would be
interested)
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 09:29:57PM +0200, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 9:01 PM Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> 
> > Michael Niedermayer (12024-06-17):
> > > also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for
> > ffserver
> > > than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for
> > ffserver
> > > than txproto.
> > >
> > > https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=txproto,ffserver
> > >
> > > So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
> > > users
> > >
> > > And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
> > > FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
> > > sub projects.
> > >
> > > We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.
> > > We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.
> > > We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.
> > > ...
> >
> > Hear! Hear!
> >
> > I would add, as general guiding principles:
> >
> > We should provide both low- and high-level APIs. Ideally, the fftools
> > should be just user interface around the high-level APIs provided by the
> > libraries.
> 
> 
> Patches welcome? Not that it means anything, but you had exactly 2 lines on
> ffserver before it got removed, so I wonder who exactly you think should be
> maintaining all that cruft code (honest question, if you have a real plan
> for solving this ageless problem I think many people on the ML would be
> interested)

This isn't a hard problem to solve, just a boring one:

If you want more contributions, you need more contributors.
If you want more contributors, you need to make it easy to get started.
If you want to make it easy to get started, focus on the tedious things
that trip newbies up, not the interesting problems you'd like them to have.

You talked elsewhere about moving to a modern UI.  That's a fine long-term goal,
but how about starting simple - instead of waiting for patches to go stale
and making people beg, apply patches 48 hours after the thread goes quiet,
then revert them if someone asks for more time to review.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 8:34 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 07:42:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:32:27PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> > > Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefasab@gmail.com:
> > >
> > > > On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > >>
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern
> streaming
> > > >> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick
> to
> > > > the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
> > > > be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
> > > > association with the old incompatible tool .
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
> > > and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
> > > multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
> > > ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
> > > It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
> > > but that was largely the case that ffserver had.
> > >
> > > What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
> > > it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
> > > the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
> > > AVTransport can largely fill that niche.
> >
> > hmm
> > how would we (assert(people agreeing)) go from what you describe
> > to a (very easy to use) ffserver "2.0" in something on the ffmpeg.org
> download page
> > ?
>
> also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for
> ffserver
> than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for
> ffserver
> than txproto.
>
> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=txproto,ffserver
>
> So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
> users
>

https://trends.google.it/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=ffmpeg,vlc&hl=it
By that reasoning we should stop working on ffmpeg and move off to working
on VLC

or mpv
https://trends.google.it/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=ffmpeg,mpv&hl=it


> And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
> FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
> sub projects.
>

https://trends.google.it/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=ffmpeg,gpac&hl=it
so you agree that we shouldn't have had gpac at the ffmpeg booth?


> We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.
> We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.
> We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.
>

We should move to a patch review system with a modern UI, like
github/gitea/gitlab, everything else is secondary
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 17 juin 2024 20:34:39 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
>also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for ffserver
>than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for ffserver
>than txproto.

Nobody looks at txproto since it's (AFAIK) a one-person experimental project that almost no one knows about. I don't think that metric has any relevance whatsoever, TBH.


>
>So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
>users

It's easy to have more users than one. I'm sure even VLS that has been unmaintained for 20 years, give or take, has more users than txproto, by that questionable metric.

>
>And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
>FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
>sub projects.

It proves no such thing. And that goes against all common sense. Using FFmpeg branding and website is one thing; if the community agrees to it, why not. But tying different projects into a single git tree is just plain dumb.

Git is not designed to handle more than one release timeline for one thing, and you will need separate release timelines if you take up separate projects.

Also people have been complaining about excess traffic on ffmpeg-devel, which indicates that we should break stuff down into smaller projects (if it were practical - I don't think it is in this particular case), rather than let the scope creep.

>We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.

Well, if you have funding for developing and maintaining it, I don't think people will object much. Because it's not that big of a stretch from what FFmpeg is, and no stretch at all from what it was.

>We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.

Sure, if it can pass code reviews absolutely. WASM should be treated as just another ISA.

>We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.

No. First there is no such thing as "a fully competitive player". You would need at least one mobile player, one smart TV and STB player and one desktop player, on top of the existing crude CLI player. And that's if you manage Android and iOS, mac and Windows, together. Otherwise it's even more players.

Then you would need each of them to have features that FFmpeg doesn't have as a back-end, notably media library management.

That's a lot of work, mostly GUI work. No offence but you and most other devs here don't strike me as GUI devs. VLC is pretty much dead now for under-estimating how hard it was to rewrite the desktop UI. How will you find and keep motivated the developers for all that UI work? They are not going to manifest spontaneously, even less so in a community with a deservedly horrible reputation as FFmpeg's.

Unless you just won the Euromillion or something like that, this is not going to happen. No ifs or buts about it.
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3034 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:02:31PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 17 juin 2024 20:34:39 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
[...]
> >We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.
> 
> No. First there is no such thing as "a fully competitive player". You would need at least one mobile player, one smart TV and STB player and one desktop player, on top of the existing crude CLI player. And that's if you manage Android and iOS, mac and Windows, together. Otherwise it's even more players.

Maybe "fully competetive player" was a bad term

I think ffplay is quite close to being fully competetive. I do use it 95% of the time
and iam not feeling like iam missing something


> 
> Then you would need each of them to have features that FFmpeg doesn't have as a back-end, notably media library management.

we support various playlists. That could be extended
but i agree some kind of playlist display and editing / (media library management seems a fancy term for that)
is important for some users


> 
> That's a lot of work, mostly GUI work. No offence but you and most other devs here don't strike me as GUI devs. VLC is pretty much dead now for under-estimating how hard it was to rewrite the desktop UI. How will you find and keep motivated the developers for all that UI work? They are not going to manifest spontaneously, even less so in a community with a deservedly horrible reputation as FFmpeg's.

I have written basic GUIs in some toy projects long prior ffmpeg, I remember
having had a multi level menu and a animated raytraced mouse cursor in one ;)
it was just a few lines of C + ASM code but looked quite good for the time.

And in the software defined radio code i had written there was a vissualization with
the decoded channel/artist/song names drawn on the spectrum waterfall plot thingy.

If one wants to write a GUI with 10 differnt high level APIs, its going to be alot of
code and hard to maintain (keeping up with each platforms / lib GUI APIs and all the bugs)
I see nothing wrong with making it easy for people to do this if one wants to maintain
a specific GUI for a specific platform.
But supporting 10 GUI libs wasnt what i had in mind

Instead really we need just one GUI, and 2 variants (one for touchscreens and one for non touchscreens)
implementing this with nothing but ANSI C and a framebuffer / 2d array of pixels is very doable.
It can be made to look quite good, it depends on no APIs, and its not alot of code.
One can of course also instead use some portable GUI library, i think whoever works on such GUI
would decide how to do it.


> 
> Unless you just won the Euromillion or something like that, this is not going to happen. No ifs or buts about it.

I think we where thinking of different things

thx

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

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into
despotisms. -- Aristotle

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne via ffmpeg-devel]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4891 bytes --]

On 17/06/2024 20:34, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 07:42:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:32:27PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
>>> Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefasab@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
>>>>> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
>>>> the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
>>>> be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
>>>> association with the old incompatible tool .
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
>>> and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
>>> multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
>>> ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
>>> It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
>>> but that was largely the case that ffserver had.
>>>
>>> What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
>>> it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
>>> the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
>>> AVTransport can largely fill that niche.
>>
>> hmm
>> how would we (assert(people agreeing)) go from what you describe
>> to a (very easy to use) ffserver "2.0" in something on the ffmpeg.org download page
>> ?
> 
> also if you look at google trends, even today more people search for ffserver
> than txproto. In fact at every point in time more people searched for ffserver
> than txproto.
> 
> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=txproto,ffserver
> 
> So even though ffserver is dead, removed and unmaintained, it has more
> users
> 
> And this comes back to what i said many times. We should use the name
> FFmpeg, our domain and NOT push every bit of new inovation out into
> sub projects.
> 
> We should put a newly developed ffserver into the main ffmpeg git.
> We should put wasm build support into the main ffmpeg git.
> We should turn ffplay into a fully competetive player.

Forgot to respond to this.
I agree that txproto is a stupid name which stuck around when I 
absolutely had to give it some name, and I hope to change it to a more 
suitable one, one day.

I'm not sure what to call it, as it could partially fulfill the duties 
of ffserver, ffplay and ffmpeg all at once. Its a high level Lua, and C, 
wrapper around all the libraries that simply lets users dynamically link 
and unlink components, while handling the flow of frames and packets 
entirely for you. It still lets you optionally handle low-level packets 
and frames via callbacks, so you can still do frame-precise stuff, like 
applying a filter to only one specific frame.
It provides a C library, and a CLI.

There's even code for GUIs present, though the only functionality that 
code has is to present a stream of AVFrames on screen, and draw a 
rectangle (used for screenshot region selection). It already has 
handling for keyboard/mouse inputs, so it should be easy to integrated 
ImGui or nuklear for something more complete. Everything related to 
displaying is done via libplacebo.

I think its possibly maybe close enough to what users have been asking 
us for, and a little more.

I've written very well integrated backends for interfacing to the OS, so 
it can use them much better than ffmpeg could ever use avdevice, and 
lets the code do much, from local/networked transcoding, relaying, 
monitoring, presenting to screen and recording, which you can check out 
here:
https://github.com/cyanreg/txproto/tree/master/DOCS/examples

It could in theory perform the duties of ffplay and ffserver as well as 
any of them can/could. But not ffmpeg, due to the huge amount of 
specific handling for various cases we have there.

I would be fine with moving the code under a repository administered by 
the project that we can all contribute, work on, and perhaps one day 
officially offer as software alongside all the rest of the projects we 
work on, if there's enough interest and consensus from the community.
The codebase is completely LGPL2+ like ours, and it uses as much of all 
of our libraries as possible, including routines to allocate memory.
I would not merge this into our main repository though, no way.

It is currently used in production, though under controlled and 
predictable circumstances. So its not recommended to general users.
There are many known issues that I'm working on fixing, and error 
handling is quite bad currently.

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 637 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:

> * ffchat
>     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>     all parts for it already but some people where against it

You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We
don't need even more fragmentation in that space - heretical projects
like Matrix are bad enough. It's also widely out of scope.

> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will
> use
>     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these

New codecs are better developed as separate projects. The IETF has a
group dedicated to codec development. In fact they seem to be working
on ML codecs right now: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mlcodec/about/

> * [your idea here]

A large long term project that would help immensely with security is
moving to a proper parsing framework, rather than the present shotgun
parsing approach. But this might be such a large undertaking that it's
better to start from scratch.

A more modest proposal is to improve subtitle support. Streaming
support could also be improved, and would be very much with the times.
The fact that we can't pass MPEG-TS through unmolested isn't great.

/Tomas
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Diederick C. Niehorster]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50 AM Tomas Härdin <git@haerdin.se> wrote:
> A large long term project that would help immensely with security is
> moving to a proper parsing framework, rather than the present shotgun
> parsing approach. But this might be such a large undertaking that it's
> better to start from scratch.
>
> A more modest proposal is to improve subtitle support. Streaming
> support could also be improved, and would be very much with the times.
> The fact that we can't pass MPEG-TS through unmolested isn't great.

Are point like these two, setting up a gitlab, etc, collected on a
wiki somewhere? Would make writing something like the big recent
funding application a bunch easier next time.

Cheers,
Dee
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> 
> > * ffchat
> >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> 
> You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We

If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then theres no
need to invent a new one

I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by default and always"
(there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up security/privacy)

thx

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

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > 
> > > * ffchat
> > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > almost
> > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > 
> > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We
> 
> If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then theres no
> need to invent a new one
> 
> I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by default
> and always"
> (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> security/privacy)

"Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.

If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then XMPP+OMEMO
is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
time I checked.

If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its internet
traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over WiFi
Direct and Bluetooth.

There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.

Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're not
likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing beats
not using computers at all.

/Tomas
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2369 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > 
> > > > * ffchat
> > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > > almost
> > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > > 
> > > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We
> > 
> > If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then theres no
> > need to invent a new one
> > 
> > I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by default
> > and always"
> > (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> > security/privacy)
> 
> "Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.

yes, more security and privacy is better


> 
> If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then XMPP+OMEMO
> is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
> time I checked.
> 
> If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
> peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its internet
> traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over WiFi
> Direct and Bluetooth.
> 
> There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.
> 
> Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're not
> likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing beats
> not using computers at all.

sure, i agree, we should use existing protocols whenever one exists
for a purpose already ...

libavformat supports, RTP, RTSP, MMS, HLS, RTMP and probably more
we support audio, video, data and text packets/streams

So adding support for some more secure/private protocols is
within the scope of libavformat.

And it would allow all multimedia players to use these more secure
means of communicating. As well as writing dedicated secure chat applications on
top of libavformat.
This would bring in more users and developers

thx

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

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

lör 2024-04-27 klockan 12:53 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > > 
> > > > > * ffchat
> > > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > > > almost
> > > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > > > 
> > > > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please
> > > > don't. We
> > > 
> > > If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then
> > > theres no
> > > need to invent a new one
> > > 
> > > I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by
> > > default
> > > and always"
> > > (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> > > security/privacy)
> > 
> > "Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.
> 
> yes, more security and privacy is better

Not always. More security is typically more work. For example TOFU
(trust on first use) is easy but you should really compare
fingerprints. The latter is more work however.

I've worked with helping people who have a need or even a legal
obligation to secure their chats, such as journalists. This is non-
trivial. Have you done the necessary research on this?

> > If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then
> > XMPP+OMEMO
> > is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
> > time I checked.
> > 
> > If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
> > peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its
> > internet
> > traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over
> > WiFi
> > Direct and Bluetooth.
> > 
> > There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.
> > 
> > Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're
> > not
> > likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing
> > beats
> > not using computers at all.
> 
> sure, i agree, we should use existing protocols whenever one exists
> for a purpose already ...
> 
> libavformat supports, RTP, RTSP, MMS, HLS, RTMP and probably more
> we support audio, video, data and text packets/streams
> 
> So adding support for some more secure/private protocols is
> within the scope of libavformat.

I'm curious what protocols you have in mind, assuming we're still
talking multimedia. Taking XMPP as an example, multimedia attachments
are handled via HTTP upload, meaning playback only depends on HTTP(S)
support. I expect most XMPP clients already leverage libav* for
playback

> And it would allow all multimedia players to use these more secure
> means of communicating.

Why do media players need chat functionality? Should we implement email
while we're at it?

> As well as writing dedicated secure chat applications on
> top of libavformat.

I can imagine many things more pleasant than writing a chat system on
top of lavf, such as eating sand. Or even worse, having to take such
systems into consideration when attempting to refactor lavf..

> This would bring in more users and developers

Outreach would likely be more effective, and far less work

/Tomas
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5026 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 08:01:14PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> lör 2024-04-27 klockan 12:53 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > > > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > * ffchat
> > > > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > > > > almost
> > > > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > > > > 
> > > > > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please
> > > > > don't. We
> > > > 
> > > > If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then
> > > > theres no
> > > > need to invent a new one
> > > > 
> > > > I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by
> > > > default
> > > > and always"
> > > > (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> > > > security/privacy)
> > > 
> > > "Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.
> > 
> > yes, more security and privacy is better
> 
> Not always. More security is typically more work.

Yes, thats of course true
I meant it more in a sense of providing a sane level of security&privacy
and then always providing the maximum security&privacy as long as it did not
add "cost" to the user.
As well as maybe automating things where that can be done without it by itself
causing more issues than it fixes.


> For example TOFU
> (trust on first use) is easy but you should really compare
> fingerprints. The latter is more work however.

> 
> I've worked with helping people who have a need or even a legal
> obligation to secure their chats, such as journalists. This is non-
> trivial.

I did not know. So i first would like to thank you for doing that
sort of stuff. The world today is increasingly in need of this.


> Have you done the necessary research on this?

probably not. Because i did not had the need for truly secure communication.
also if i had the need it would then be a specific case while the goal here
is more to have something generically usefull. Like gpg is for email.



> 
> > > If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then
> > > XMPP+OMEMO
> > > is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
> > > time I checked.
> > > 
> > > If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
> > > peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its
> > > internet
> > > traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over
> > > WiFi
> > > Direct and Bluetooth.
> > > 
> > > There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.
> > > 
> > > Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're
> > > not
> > > likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing
> > > beats
> > > not using computers at all.
> > 
> > sure, i agree, we should use existing protocols whenever one exists
> > for a purpose already ...
> > 
> > libavformat supports, RTP, RTSP, MMS, HLS, RTMP and probably more
> > we support audio, video, data and text packets/streams
> > 
> > So adding support for some more secure/private protocols is
> > within the scope of libavformat.
> 
> I'm curious what protocols you have in mind, assuming we're still
> talking multimedia. Taking XMPP as an example, multimedia attachments
> are handled via HTTP upload, meaning playback only depends on HTTP(S)
> support. I expect most XMPP clients already leverage libav* for
> playback

Depending on the adversary. https can be a bad choice, as it can be
attacked by anyone in control of any single certificate authority so
https provides no security against nation-states / secret services or
determined large corporations.
So i would somwhat favor avoiding the dependance on such certificate authorities
also https seems it would make a central server mandatory which then
is a central point an adversary could use to monitor that being sub optimal


> 
> > And it would allow all multimedia players to use these more secure
> > means of communicating.
> 
> Why do media players need chat functionality? Should we implement email
> while we're at it?

Well, from the few conferences i did listen to (that being fflabs and IETF stuff)
its not uncommon someone has some text to pass along, like a URL or someones
microphone doesnt work. So id say the ability to exchange some text is
important.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Dictatorship: All citizens are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the politicians to enforce control.
Democracy: All politicians are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the citizens to enforce control.

[-- 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".