Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] web: announce code.ffmpeg.org

From: Timo Rothenpieler <timo@rothenpieler.org>
To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] web: announce code.ffmpeg.org
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:23:02 +0200
Message-ID: <8818ec57-ac91-4a42-9be5-79c07c12b265@rothenpieler.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPLASTGZLehQjPj=ENNj3ZYA_o2Ys53mj-EOiMSVxXLFo2qoQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/2025 10:14 PM, Kacper Michajlow wrote:
> n Sat, 26 Jul 2025 at 21:29, Timo Rothenpieler <timo@rothenpieler.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/26/2025 7:03 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2025 4:53 AM, Lynne wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>>    src/contact | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>    src/index   | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    2 files changed, 63 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> So I am a bit unclear, is development now Forgejo or ML, or both?
>>>
>>> Because right now, it seems like both, and that is basically the worst
>>> possible outcome. It is very difficult to follow both, and the amount
>>> of people reviewing or even looking at patches on either is now significantly
>>> splintered/reduced, allowing lower quality code to wade itself in the meantime,
>>> IMO.
>>>
>>> Also, as far as I can tell, the git access list was not really carried over in
>>> any way.
>>>
>>> It all seems a bit chaotic and directionless... or rather, with 0 plan.
>>
>> It's still an extended test. You cannot push to it, since it's just a
>> mirror.
>>
>> How do you expect to suddenly switch every last person over from the ML
>> to a new tool?
>> There's always going to be a transition period where both are in use,
>> gradually shifting.
>> So yes, for now there needs to be eyes on both.
>>
>> Hopefully pushing to it/hitting the merge button should be possible soon
>> (hinges on cooperation with Videolan)
> 
> I agree with Derek on this topic, I think it is unreasonable to have
> two ways to merge patches into the main repository.
> 
> Once the "merge button" is operational, all direct push to the
> repository should be restricted and always required to go through PR.
> 
> There may still be communication/review overlap between ML/forgejo,
> but ultimately it should go through one path of merge/approve.

I agree, but unfortunately don't feel like it's a realistic expectation.
Forcing everyone into a new workflow all at once is not going to go well 
with everybody.
_______________________________________________
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".