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

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

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

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

all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
"F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
(or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)

After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
* apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the Forgejo git
  (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)

* extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
  (or someone else can set one up)

* announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
  and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML

* 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.

thx

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.

[-- 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".

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

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel]

G but hosted by videolan

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, 12:44 Michael Niedermayer, <michael@niedermayer.cc>
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
>
> all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
> "F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
> End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
> (or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)
>
> After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
> * apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the Forgejo
> git
>   (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)
>
> * extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
>   (or someone else can set one up)
>
> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
>   and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
>
> * 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.
>
> thx
>
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker.
> User
> questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user
> ML.
> And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 1:43 PM, 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
I'm indifferent about this, either works for me.

Just want to note that hosting Gitlab is quite a bit more expensive than 
Forgejo, for which I'm currently just paying out of pocket.
So for an official Gitlab test setup, I'd occasionally forward 
accumulated bills for refund by SPI.
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 550 bytes --]

Hi

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 01:58:44PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
[...]

> Just want to note that hosting Gitlab is quite a bit more expensive than
> Forgejo, for which I'm currently just paying out of pocket.
> So for an official Gitlab test setup, I'd occasionally forward accumulated
> bills for refund by SPI.

Can you elaborate on the source of this additional cost ?

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".

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

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 5:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 01:58:44PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> Just want to note that hosting Gitlab is quite a bit more expensive than
>> Forgejo, for which I'm currently just paying out of pocket.
>> So for an official Gitlab test setup, I'd occasionally forward accumulated
>> bills for refund by SPI.
> 
> Can you elaborate on the source of this additional cost ?

It's written in Ruby, which is not exactly fast or light on resources.
The recommended minimum instance Gitlab defines is one with 16GB RAM and 
8 cores.
Gitlab also does not officially support running on aarch64, though it 
does supposedly work, you'd be on your own supporting that setup.

So while a Forgejo instance suitable for our expected usage can run on 
an CAX21 instance (4 CPUs, 8GB RAM, aarch64) which costs 7,13€ a month, 
the Gitlab minimum specs demand a CX42 or CPX41 instance for 18,92€ or 
29,39€ a month (both are 8CPU, 16GB RAM, the more expensive "P" one 
being faster AMD CPUs, the non P one Intel).
The Intel CPUs are likely fine, performance wise, but it's still almost 
triple the cost at a minimum.

If Gitlab could run on aarch64 the respective CAX31 instance would cost 
only 14,27€ a month.
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 6:07 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 7/13/2025 5:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 01:58:44PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Just want to note that hosting Gitlab is quite a bit more expensive than
>>> Forgejo, for which I'm currently just paying out of pocket.
>>> So for an official Gitlab test setup, I'd occasionally forward 
>>> accumulated
>>> bills for refund by SPI.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on the source of this additional cost ?
> 
> It's written in Ruby, which is not exactly fast or light on resources.
> The recommended minimum instance Gitlab defines is one with 16GB RAM and 
> 8 cores.
> Gitlab also does not officially support running on aarch64, though it 
> does supposedly work, you'd be on your own supporting that setup.
> 
> So while a Forgejo instance suitable for our expected usage can run on 
> an CAX21 instance (4 CPUs, 8GB RAM, aarch64) which costs 7,13€ a month, 
> the Gitlab minimum specs demand a CX42 or CPX41 instance for 18,92€ or 
> 29,39€ a month (both are 8CPU, 16GB RAM, the more expensive "P" one 
> being faster AMD CPUs, the non P one Intel).
> The Intel CPUs are likely fine, performance wise, but it's still almost 
> triple the cost at a minimum.
> 
> If Gitlab could run on aarch64 the respective CAX31 instance would cost 
> only 14,27€ a month.

Actually, I just noticed there are aarch64 packages and images now, 
since the very latest version apparently:

https://hub.docker.com/r/gitlab/gitlab-ce/tags?name=18

So the cost difference is a bit smaller, but still there. It costs 
roughly double to host Gitlab vs. Forgejo, though that double boils down 
to something like ~7€ a month extra.

_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, 17:07 Timo Rothenpieler, <timo@rothenpieler.org> wrote:

> On 7/13/2025 5:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 01:58:44PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Just want to note that hosting Gitlab is quite a bit more expensive than
> >> Forgejo, for which I'm currently just paying out of pocket.
> >> So for an official Gitlab test setup, I'd occasionally forward
> accumulated
> >> bills for refund by SPI.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on the source of this additional cost ?
>
> It's written in Ruby, which is not exactly fast or light on resources.
> The recommended minimum instance Gitlab defines is one with 16GB RAM and
> 8 cores.
>

This is not a lot of resources in 2025. FFmpeg is not a high school project
and the miniscule difference between cheap servers should make no
difference.

If we choose Gitlab it should be hosted on a powerful server (for arguments
sake 32 cores) and SPI funds use to pay for it.

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Yalda]

F, due to it feeling faster and more responsive while navigating.
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

G

but some people may not be comfortable voting in public like that.


_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Jacob Lifshay]

On July 13, 2025 4:43:57 AM PDT, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> Do people want Forgejo or Gitlab on code.ffmpeg.org for testing?

i'll note that I ran into some important upsides and downsides with both of those when picking which to use for projects i've worked on, hopefully this info is useful for ffmpeg:

* gitlab just recently decided their open source version won't be supporting pull mirroring (where the server actively pulls every so often from a remote repository):
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/23166#note_2620944560

* forgejo doesn't yet support scoped permissions for oauth, so if you use a forgejo account for authenticating with some website/program, that effectively gives that website/program full permissions to anything you can access/modify through your forgejo account (it says administrative privileges, so maybe even more than that?):
https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/oauth2-provider/
(not to be confused with using e.g. google to log into your forgejo account which afaik has no significant issues)

* forgejo's runner (for CI) is almost completely compatible with github actions (though forgejo doesn't aim for compatibility), so that makes running CI easier in some ways since iirc basically every github action I've tried on forgejo just works.

Jacob
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 5:56 PM, Jacob Lifshay wrote:
> 
> 
> On July 13, 2025 4:43:57 AM PDT, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Do people want Forgejo or Gitlab on code.ffmpeg.org for testing?
> 
> i'll note that I ran into some important upsides and downsides with both of those when picking which to use for projects i've worked on, hopefully this info is useful for ffmpeg:
> 
> * gitlab just recently decided their open source version won't be supporting pull mirroring (where the server actively pulls every so often from a remote repository):
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/23166#note_2620944560
> 
> * forgejo doesn't yet support scoped permissions for oauth, so if you use a forgejo account for authenticating with some website/program, that effectively gives that website/program full permissions to anything you can access/modify through your forgejo account (it says administrative privileges, so maybe even more than that?):
> https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/oauth2-provider/
> (not to be confused with using e.g. google to log into your forgejo account which afaik has no significant issues)
> 
> * forgejo's runner (for CI) is almost completely compatible with github actions (though forgejo doesn't aim for compatibility), so that makes running CI easier in some ways since iirc basically every github action I've tried on forgejo just works.

On that note it's also worth mentioning that Forgejo/Gitea CI is still 
marked as experimental.
While it does work fine in practice and is unlikely to experience any 
super disruptive changes at this point, Gitlab CI is considerably more 
mature.
Though it does need to be completely re-learned, since it's not at all 
compatible with GHA CI.
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1096 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 01:43:57PM +0200, 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

F.

TLDR below:

* Forgejo is community maintained
* Cheaper to operate (see timos reply)
* Its faster

Gitlab is a publicly traded company, its executives must by law
    act in the interest of gitlab and its shareholders.

    Gitlab can only provide free licenses to free software projects, as long
    as doing so gives gitlab and its shareholders a benefit.

    publicly traded companies must try to maximize profits.

Its simply not in FFmpegs interrest to make ourselfs dependant on that.
Unless theres a large benefit from doing that. I dont belive gitlab
is better by a large enough amount in any way to make us dependant on it.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

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

[-- 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".

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

[Ronald S. Bultje]

G, preferably hosted by videolan.

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 7:44 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
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
>
> all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
> "F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
> End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
> (or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)
>
> After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
> * apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the Forgejo
> git
>   (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)
>
> * extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
>   (or someone else can set one up)
>
> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
>   and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
>
> * 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.
>
> thx
>
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker.
> User
> questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user
> ML.
> And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 8:04 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> G, preferably hosted by videolan.

The main issue I have with Videolan Gitlab is the ultra locked down 
signup policy.
People appear in Videolan IRC multiple times a week asking to get their 
account activated, and only sometimes actually get help. Often they 
already waited multiple days.
It's an understandable anti-spam measure, but also extremely hostile to 
any potential contributor.

Also, Videolan Gitlab is very often, like at the moment of writing, 
EXTREMELY slow.
It just took it over a full minute to render the main page of the VLC 
repo, and this isn't the first time I've seen it this slow.
There's periods where it's decently responsive, but I feel like I have 
seen it slow more often than fast.

It's probably also bogged down by the flood of LLM scrapers, but there 
do not seem to be any countermeasures in place.

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 7:44 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> 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
>>
>> all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
>> "F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
>> End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
>> (or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)
>>
>> After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
>> * apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the Forgejo
>> git
>>    (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)
>>
>> * extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
>>    (or someone else can set one up)
>>
>> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
>>    and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
>>
>> * 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.
>>
>> thx
>>
>> --
>> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>>
>> Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker.
>> User
>> questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user
>> ML.
>> And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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".
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".

_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1377 bytes --]

Hi Ronald

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 02:04:15PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> G, preferably hosted by videolan.

This poll really is about, what we should setup on our server.

If you want to discuss giving up our autonomy (not sure thats what you meant)
We can discuss that, though iam not sure email is the medium over which i can
convey my position successfully.

But let me try.
My vission for FFmpeg was, and is that it should be and remain the leading
multimedia framework. (I mean its even in teh "about" of ffmpeg)
And i very much would like to move in this direction together with everyone
who shares this vission. (including all the innovation, AI and so on in ffmpeg)

I also belive that decissions in FFmpeg should be made by the community
(who shares a similar vission).

And really the leading multimedia framework needs its own server and cannot
be hosted by another multimedia framework.

Thats on top of reasons related to performance, independance, and flexibility

Theres also the more personal reason, that i dont want to work on a #2
framework or appendix under some other framework. Id like to compete and
win and be working on #1 :)

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend
to be. -- Socrates

[-- 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".

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

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, 22:47 Michael Niedermayer, <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi Ronald
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 02:04:15PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > G, preferably hosted by videolan.
>
> This poll really is about, what we should setup on our server.
>
> If you want to discuss giving up our autonomy (not sure thats what you
> meant)
> We can discuss that, though iam not sure email is the medium over which i
> can
> convey my position successfully.
>
> But let me try.
> My vission for FFmpeg was, and is that it should be and remain the leading
> multimedia framework. (I mean its even in teh "about" of ffmpeg)
> And i very much would like to move in this direction together with everyone
> who shares this vission. (including all the innovation, AI and so on in
> ffmpeg)
>
> I also belive that decissions in FFmpeg should be made by the community
> (who shares a similar vission).
>
> And really the leading multimedia framework needs its own server and cannot
> be hosted by another multimedia framework.
>
> Thats on top of reasons related to performance, independance, and
> flexibility
>
> Theres also the more personal reason, that i dont want to work on a #2
> framework or appendix under some other framework. Id like to compete and
> win and be working on #1 :)
>
> thx
>

Ffmpeg has been using Videolan infra for git for over a decade.

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Philip Langdale via ffmpeg-devel]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 13:43:57 +0200
Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> 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
> 
> all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
> "F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
> End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
> (or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)
> 
> After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
> * apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the
> Forgejo git (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)
> 
> * extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
>   (or someone else can set one up)
> 
> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
>   and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
> 
> * 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.
> 
> thx
> 

F.

I do not actually have a strong opinion, but I know Timo already got
Forgejo set up, and so we should take advantage of that.

--phil
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 7/13/2025 11:55 PM, Philip Langdale via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 13:43:57 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> 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
>>
>> all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
>> "F." / "Forgejo" vs "G." / "Gitlab"
>> End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to extend that.
>> (or do people want a formal vote to be setup? on vote.ffmpeg.org)
>>
>> After we decide what to run on code.ffmpeg.org, I intend to
>> * apply the CI patches which timo currently keeps rebasing on the
>> Forgejo git (maybe timo can post these to ffmpeg-devel)
>>
>> * extend my github cronjob to autosync Forgejo or Gitlab too
>>    (or someone else can set one up)
>>
>> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
>>    and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
>>
>> * 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.
>>
>> thx
>>
> 
> F.
> 
> I do not actually have a strong opinion, but I know Timo already got
> Forgejo set up, and so we should take advantage of that.

I want to point out that I primarily set up Forgejo since I have never 
done so before, while I have some limited experience with Gitlab from work.
And since I figured more people had never used Gitea/Forgejo before than 
Gitlab, a test instance made sense to me.

I can set up Gitlab in the span of one evening in place of Forgejo, so 
Forgejo already being there should not be a criteria.
_______________________________________________
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".

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

[Marvin Scholz]

F (see below for my reasoning)

While I would be fine with either outcome, and had helped extensively for the
GitLab migration of VLC and at that time was quite convinced its the best solution
out there, my opinion on this has changed, and also Gitea or now its fork Forgejo
changed quite a bit and also some things on GitLabs side I got increasingly frustrated
with.

My main issue with GitLab is the enterprise edition. While I understand the need for them
to have some sensible business model, I fundamentally disagree with some of their allegedly
business features, just to name a few that I very much disagree with:

- Scoped labels (https://docs.gitlab.com/user/project/labels/#scoped-labels)
- Configurable issue boards (https://docs.gitlab.com/user/project/issue_board/)
- Custom fields in issues (https://docs.gitlab.com/user/work_items/custom_fields/)

Also, while I don't necessary disagree with this being a more enterprise-ish
feature, merge trains are incredibly useful for big open source projects
for merging multiple changes efficiently:

- Merge trains (https://docs.gitlab.com/ci/pipelines/merge_trains/)

Once a feature is in the enterprise edition it is really hard to get it moved into
the community edition (Free tier) and also obviously means that no open source
contributor could build such a feature and submit it upstream for the community
edition.

Also GitLabs codebase is very hard to approach as a new contributor, making it
quite hard to quickly add a missing feature or fix an annoying issue. There are
also somewhat trivial features not implemented for a very long time, just to name
one example:

- Multiple artifacts for a CI job (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/18744#note_2603279227)

Also for this feature they consider it being an "advanced" one and therefore to be
an enterprise edition feature: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/18744#note_899915876

Of course this doesn't mean Forgejo is perfect but I am personally more hopeful for its
future than I am for GitLab. So I think it would be at least worth a try to go that route.
Note also that it doesn't mean anything is set in stone, we could change again if it turns
out Forgejo doesn't work well for us…

Sorry for the long email, have a nice start of the week everyone!

Regards,
Marvin Scholz
_______________________________________________
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".