Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2870 bytes --]

On 1/21/2025 2:48 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi James
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:22:52PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 1/21/2025 12:54 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:04:45PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:39:29 -0600 Marth64 <marth64@proxyid.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hello, in the context of a GA member,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there is general interest in modernizing technical tooling
>>>>> specifically regarding ML/patch workflow vs. integrated git solution.
>>>>> Both have their merits. I think what we have today is optimized for
>>>>> some but cumbersome for many. Like shopping for a drill, it is good to
>>>>> step back from time to time and ensure we have the right tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem statement of productivity being impacted from
>>>>> outgrowing the current tooling is different from who is hosting it.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are some options I noticed interest in (in no particular order):
>>>>> - Forgejo
>>>>> - GitLab
>>>>> - Mailing List/Patch Workflow (current solution)
>>>>
>>>> Since our last discussion at VDD, I have come to prefer Forgejo over GitLab
>>>> and would be in favor of hosting an instance on ffmpeg.org.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> What are the current barriers to doing this. Michael, since you said that you
>>>> are in favor iff the community agrees with it, should we start a GA vote on
>>>> the matter?
>>>
>>> I would instead of a secret GA vote, maybe wait a few days for discussion
>>> to settle down and then just ask people on the ML about (yes vs no) (strong vs weak)
>>> and a short paragraph about a switch to Forgejo
>>
>> We can always start a Condorcet vote where the requirement is that only
>> non-anonymous votes are considered, if you think that will help (Maybe it
>> can even be forced to actually cast your vote?). A vote using mail replies
>> in a thread with yes/no is hard to follow.
> 
> we can force non anonymous voting, this isnt the main concern
> 
> 
>>
>> Also, the vote can happen after a thread with replies stating support for
>> one or another solution, with optional argumentation if there's something to
>> say that hasn't been said already.
>>
>>>
>>> As well as a 2nd question:
>>> namely on the threshold
>>> should we switch if we have 51% ? or no strong opposition ? or how to draw
>>> the line?
>>
>> Ideally, there would be two votes. One to open the question if we move away
>> from ML patches, and then one to choose between Forgejo/Gitlab, if the first
>> vote succeeds. But i don't know if people will be ok with that.
> 
> that can be done too or a condorcet of gitlab/Forgejo/ML patches can be done
> 
> my concern is that the community is not just 49 people.
Then please, suggest names for people not currently in it that you think 
should be.


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 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".