Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [POLL][RFC] Merge vs Cherry pick for integration of changes

[Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3181 bytes --]

Hi Niklas

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Niklas Haas via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:32:02 +0200 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Should we use a Merge or Cherry picks for integrating Pauls work ?
> >
> > Following are 2 plans, as we execute either we may run into issues
> > and of course adapt them as needed. (or even switch)
> >
> > Option M:
> >     This would be a merge of pauls last revission before files where
> >     switched to GPL and the command line tool to AGPL
> >
> >     It would include all changes (except what is intentionally skiped)
> >     (This will look similar to how almpeg looks now)
> >
> >     Fate tests would be added after the merge where sample media is
> >     publically available on our server.
> >     Reviews of Individual modules can be done after the merge where
> >     people want to do that.
> >
> > Option C:
> >     Individual Modules (Codecs, Filters, Demuxers) would be submitted
> >     as patch(sets)
> >
> >     This would include only the picked changes. Changes noone picks and
> >     posts would be missing.
> >
> >     Each would go through the review process (some likely with "apply
> >     after timeout"). And during that review fate tests would be added
> >     where public samples are on our server.
> >
> > M would likely integrate more changes, C less changes. C may be more work.
> >
> > We currently have a point on the wiki for STF 2025 that would fund each
> > integrated module with 900€.
> > That way, whoever adds fate tests, makes changes the community wants in
> > a review, fixes bugs found by tests or review, could be funded.
> 
> D
> 
> Since you tagged the GA on this, I am going to go ahead and request that
> a formal GA vote, which I assume will be conducted before any action, must
> have the option to vote that we respect Paul's request (and arguably, his
> legal right) to not merge his work into FFmpeg.
> 
> Even if you personally think the risk of Paul litigating FFmpeg in response
> is neglible, and are willing to shoulder the potential costs of a legal battle
> on your own shoulders, I do not think it sets a good precedent and will be
> potentially damaging to the FFmpeg project's public image.

So, lets just make a thought-experiment

1. Mr X forks FFmpeg.
2. Mr X merges Pauls (LGPL) code
3. Mr X adds everything he finds cool or inovative
4. Mr X maintains his fork and stops maintaining anything in FFmpeg
5. Mr X daily merges ffmpeg improvments (and maybe pauls if his code is GPL)
6. Mr X nicely tell FFmpeg that he objects to FFmpeg merging his code ;) ;) ;))))

will ffmpeg comply to this request ?

What if I join these forks, you know each of the forks will take ffmpeg
code and each others work. (within the bounds of each ones licenses)

FFmpeg will not integrate any improvments back ?

Thats how you suggest FFmpeg should be run ?

how could that work ?

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".