Re: [FFmpeg-devel] STF 2025 grant request (2025-09-01 target)

[Pierre-Anthony Lemieux via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 6:24 PM Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
<ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025, 11:37 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pierre
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 09:28:26AM -0700, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux via
> > ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:24 AM Niklas Haas via ffmpeg-devel
> > > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:32:39 -0700 Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <
> > pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> > > > > Quick reminder that the deadline for submitting your proposal is
> > > > > quickly approaching.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also note that the total amount of the proposed projects is below for
> > > > > the minimum threshold for STF to consider the application.
> > > >
> > > > Despite my initial reservations, I decided to also apply with another
> > > > continuation of the libswscale project. Just letting you know as a
> > heads up
> > > > that I will add my proposal to the wiki shortly.
> > > >
> > > > How much more is currently needed to meet the minimum threshold?
> > >
> > > @Michael Niedermayer How many of the 100 modules do you realistically
> > > expect to complete?
> >
> > I think the main uncertainilities are
> > 1. If teh community preferrs merges or cherry picks,
> >     If they want cherry picks its 100 patch(sets) passing review, adding
> > tests
> >     where samples are on our server.
> >     If we do it as a merge, the work is still there but its different
> > likely
> >     less work.
> >     Code would be merged in one go, then people could still review the
> >     individual modules afterwards, and I still would have the same effort
> > to
> >     do to add tests and handle reviews. But maybe fewer people will post
> >     reviews with a merge than with cherry picks
> > 2.
> >     when the work starts, because i intend to submit some patchset to test
> >     the whole process as soon as i am not busy with other work in ffmpeg
> >     So we might end up with fewer than 100 if we do some before STF starts
> > 3.
> >     In all this I assume that the review process is fairly smooth and
> > requests
> >     for major changes would be very rare because that would not work with
> > the
> >     number of modules.
> >     And i assume that either we have testsamples or we dont and so the work
> >     adding tests is manageable. But the devil is in the details and tests
> >     can lead to detected bugs if the results are different between archs
> >     and so on. And then I would have to debug and fix that unknown number
> > of
> >     bugs
> >
> > So really if everything is smooth i expect all 100 but if issues arise
> > it can be less.
> > I will know how badly i miscalcuated this only afterwards ;)
> >
> > thx
> >
>
> Cherry picking Paul's fork is clearly a destructive and hostile act and is
> not good use of STF funds.

I recommend that the proposed SOWs be more specific, i.e. list those forks.

[ed.: I would definitely avoid forks from folks that have not shown
interest in working with ffmpeg, or at least list those forks as super
low priority.]

>
> STF funds are not there to fund your vendetta against Paul and other forks.
>
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".