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

[Niklas Haas via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

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.

> It is possible that teh community adjusts the exact STF task / work / ...
> before its deadline.

I think that SPI/STF projects should also be voted on by the GA before being
approved for inclusion in the contract proposal.

We already have the infrastructure for this in place, and I am sure that the
majority of the GA members would rather spend 5 minutes of their time
reviewing each project proposal rather than having it handled in an ad-hoc
manner.

The last STF round already received a number of criticisms about lack of
transparency, so I think this would be a step in the right direction.
_______________________________________________
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".