Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [POLL] [VOTE] code.ffmpeg.org

["Martin Storsjö" <martin@martin.st>]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Do people want Forgejo or Gitlab on code.ffmpeg.org for testing?
>
> F. code.ffmpeg.org should run Forgejo
> G. code.ffmpeg.org should run Gitlab

No strong opinion between the two. I have a lot of experience with Gitlab 
(which I find quite workable - although perhaps not the nicest thing in 
the world), no experience with Forgejo.

> * and a month or 2 after that we can re-asses how many people use code.ffmpeg.org
>  and how many use the ML. Then we could decide to keep using both
>  in parallel or switch back to ML or just use code.ffmpeg.org. Or in fact
>  we could switch between Gitlab or Forgejo here still as well.

I'd like to point out that we probably shouldn't be flip-flopping too much 
between different tools - as the review history of patches ideally should 
be kept available for future readers of the code as well. But running a 
couple-month experiment and then deciding to switch fully or not, sounds 
like a reasonable way to me. But the end goal should be one canonical 
tool/process, not many in parallel IMO.

// Martin

_______________________________________________
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".