Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3126 bytes --]

Hi James

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:22:52PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/21/2025 12:54 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:04:45PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:39:29 -0600 Marth64 <marth64@proxyid.net> 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)
> > > 
> > > Since our last discussion at VDD, I have come to prefer Forgejo over GitLab
> > > and would be in favor of hosting an instance on ffmpeg.org.
> > > 
> > 
> > > What are the current barriers to doing this. Michael, since you said that you
> > > are in favor iff the community agrees with it, should we start a GA vote on
> > > the matter?
> > 
> > I would instead of a secret GA vote, maybe wait a few days for discussion
> > to settle down and then just ask people on the ML about (yes vs no) (strong vs weak)
> > and a short paragraph about a switch to Forgejo
> 
> We can always start a Condorcet vote where the requirement is that only
> non-anonymous votes are considered, if you think that will help (Maybe it
> can even be forced to actually cast your vote?). A vote using mail replies
> in a thread with yes/no is hard to follow.

we can force non anonymous voting, this isnt the main concern


> 
> Also, the vote can happen after a thread with replies stating support for
> one or another solution, with optional argumentation if there's something to
> say that hasn't been said already.
> 
> > 
> > As well as a 2nd question:
> > namely on the threshold
> > should we switch if we have 51% ? or no strong opposition ? or how to draw
> > the line?
> 
> Ideally, there would be two votes. One to open the question if we move away
> from ML patches, and then one to choose between Forgejo/Gitlab, if the first
> vote succeeds. But i don't know if people will be ok with that.

that can be done too or a condorcet of gitlab/Forgejo/ML patches can be done

my concern is that the community is not just 49 people.

and before people attack me. the choice of Forgejo/gitlab/git send email affects
many more than 49 people. Every person submiting a patch or contribution is
affected. In fact everyone on ffmpeg-devel is bascially

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Avoid a single point of failure, be that a person or equipment.

[-- 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".