Hi James

On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi James
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
> > [...]
> > > > On the other hand, I believe this whole plan is a bad idea.
> > > Yes, it is a bad idea. We have had the current system in place for about
> > > five years now, and besides one or two CC assemblages being inefficient, it
> > 
> > Do you remember this suggested addition to the FAQ ?
> > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2025-January/338186.html
> > 
> > It seems you dont remember it even though this was posted just a few days ago
> > I knew this is needed to be put in the FAQ ;(
> 
> I saw it, and i think that patch is anything but objective and completely
> unacceptable. You're stating your opinion and discrediting a system in an
> official document in the project's repository itself of all places. Do you
> not see how absurd that is?

The system is absurd, the text points this out in a mocking/ironic way.
If you want me to reword this in a dry formal way, i can submit such a patch?

If not, how do you suggest we move forward here ?
We can replace the GA by a system that is not vulnerable
We can treat the GA more as guidance and not a final authority
We can publish the issue and warn our users and leave it vulnerable
We can try to block every choice, and treat this like any "publish after 90day"
   security issue (ffmpeg community refuses to fix or publish)

will reply to the 2nd part seperately

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities
are wrong. -- Voltaire