Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Experiment: enable github pull requests

[Romain Beauxis <romain.beauxis@gmail.com>]

Le mer. 12 févr. 2025 à 18:17, Soft Works
<softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Timo
> > Rothenpieler
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2025 00:34
> > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Experiment: enable github pull requests
> >
> > On 13.02.2025 00:07, Soft Works wrote:
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > Timo
> > >> Rothenpieler
> > >> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. Februar 2025 22:33
> > >> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Experiment: enable github pull requests
> > >>
> > >> On 12.02.2025 22:22, Stephen Hutchinson wrote:
> > >>> Are all accounts restricted to owning a maximum of 0 repositories by
> > >>> default, or is it set to 0 only for those that sign up through one of
> > >>> the external logins?
> > >>
> > >> It's set to 0 by default, to avoid spammers uploading junk, or just
> > >> people (ab)using it for non-ffmpeg things.
> > >>
> > >> You can open issues and comment on existing PRs.
> > >> And also create PRs using the AGit workflow:
> > >> https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/
> > >
> > > For those who are too lazy to look it up:
> > >
> > > The "Agit workflow" requires you to use non-standard Git "push-options"
> > > (either -o or --push-options):
> > >
> > > git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master -o topic="topic-branch" \
> > >    -o title="Title of the PR" \
> > >    -o description="# The PR Description
> > > This can be **any** markdown content.\n
> > > - [x] Ok"
> > >
> > > This means essentially that our attempt to move away from the e-mail-based
> > submission procedure to something easy and user-friendly, would end up in
> > replacing the current rarely-known mechanism with another even more rare
> > and obscure procedure which would (again) force everybody to use the Git
> > command line because it's (again) not supported by any tooling except Git CLI.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid, but from my point of view, this doesn't match the objective.
> >
> > The only alternative is to completely lock down the instance, and not
> > allow new users at all without manual approval of each and every one.
> >
> > People can just ask to be allowed to fork, but by default, allowing it
> > is not feasible.
>
> Hm, please help me understand what kind of spam we're talking about here. I can't imagine somebody would take the effort for selling some pills to ffmpeg developers. When it's about advertising anything, that's not the kind of reach those people are typically looking for.
>
> Or is it about misusing repos for storage of illegal content? The largest file currently is just 953kB, so we could enforce a limit small enough to make it unattractive for this purpose (unlike GitHub with 100MB per file).
>
> We could also disallow repos with custom content (i.e. only forks of ffmpeg are allowed as repo content).
>
> Then I wonder, where would be the harm? Some thousand unused forks of ffmpeg shouldn't be a problem - but maybe I'm overseeing something?

There are all sorts of copyrightable material that can be embedded
into a git repo.

Also payloads for malicious software.

etc.

Given that this all amounts to manpower from the operator, it's
totally understandable that they would like to be conservative about
opening it up.

-- Romain
_______________________________________________
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".