Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: remove myself from FFmpeg

[Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 8:12 AM Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> Rémi Denis-Courmont (12023-12-07):
> > You have had heated arguments against Paul in recent times too. You have
> also
> > argued a lot of exercising your review privileges, which sounds like a
> very
> > libavish notion to me
>
> Only because you were not there at the time to get a first-hand
> impression. That patches should be reviewed if possible was the policy
> way before libav. That came with a set of implicit rules: waiting a few
> days, then pinging, then waiting a few days and only then pushing
> without review. The role of maintainer would affect the reasonable value
> for “a few” days.
>
> Paul insistence on pushing after barely 24 hours on code with a
> maintainer that is not him always contradicting the way of doing things.
>
> Furthermore, his refusal to give more time to the maintainer when asked
> to is not just that: it is a level of rudeness and incivility
> incompatible with working together with other people.
>
> But Paul's attitude was annoying but never a real problem: resist his
> eagerness a little and soon he finds something else to do and forgets
> about pushing immediately for weeks or months.
>
> For reference, libav turned the practice that patches should be reviewed
> into a hard rule that patches must be reviewed. At the same time, since
> they had kicked out or disgusted a significant part of the projects'
> maintainers, they had nobody capable of actually reviewing the code. As
> a result, when a patch was proposed by a major libav contributor, after
> the ping somebody else who did not know the code would post a clueless
> “LGTM”.
>
> (The online archives of libav-devel seem to have disappeared, so I
> cannot link to the example I bookmarked.)
>

I am not too sure that bringing up a topic from 12 days ago with arguments
from 12 years ago is bringing any value to the conversation. Just as a
note, remember that a clueless LGTM is a better review than NO review, and
in fact it's the system that it's employed in any modern software house:
the master branch is usually protected and any PR/MR needs both CI pass and
at least a read from a developer.

Oh and for the sake of your (and our readers') time, don't bother replying,
I'm not interested in discussing 12 years ago affairs or modern development
practices here. I do invite you to evaluate whether your vision of ffmpeg
is still the one shared by the community as a whole though.

Regards
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".