On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 02:26:24AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 02:39:29PM -0600, Marth64 wrote: > > Hello, in the context of a GA member, > > > > I think there is general interest in modernizing technical tooling > > specifically regarding ML/patch workflow vs. integrated git solution. > > Both have their merits. I think what we have today is optimized for > > some but cumbersome for many. Like shopping for a drill, it is good to > > step back from time to time and ensure we have the right tools. > > > > I think the problem statement of productivity being impacted from > > outgrowing the current tooling is different from who is hosting it. > > > > These are some options I noticed interest in (in no particular order): > > - Forgejo > > - GitLab > > - Mailing List/Patch Workflow (current solution) > > > > If we evaluate this as choosing a software appliance and put aside > > "who is the host" I think we can have a good discussion. There could > > be value in coming to consensus on one step, then moving on to the > > next. > > > > The goal is not to spin around on which tool is better but I am wondering, > > > - What other options would the community consider and any relevant pros/cons? > > I dont know why the options are exclusive. One can add a Forgejo on ffmpeg.org > but leave the Mailing List/Patch Workflow in place for cases where the > maintainer or patch author prefers a ML workflow. > > I mean just add an option and see what happens > Who uses it ? > do people submit patches to it ? > do people enjoy working with it ? > do people hate working with it ? also to elaborate because i have this feeling everything i say lately is misinterpreted if we have Forgejo + ML we can still decide to drop one later and use only one. THis was just a suggestion that seemed easier to agree with for everyone than a hard switch vs not switch. thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell