From: Soft Works <softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:14:23 +0000
Message-ID: <DM8P223MB0365638F54A577B0B669A81CBAE62@DM8P223MB0365.NAMP223.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250121155421.GH4991@pb2>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Michael Niedermayer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:54 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
>
> 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
Isn't this intrinsically biased in the first place?
Asking on the mailing list about who wants to move away from it?
And then telling those who do not like or regularly use the mailing list: "Of sorry, you missed the opportunity of voicing your opinion on moving away from the ML because you didn't read the ML!"
During the time when I didn't follow the ML, I still received and got attention of the voting e-mails. I don't think that an informal call on the ML is suitable for getting a representative picture, but an e-mail with a call for voting will reach out to everybody with an equal chance of getting attention.
sw
_______________________________________________
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".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-21 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-20 20:39 Marth64
2025-01-20 21:09 ` Nicolas George
2025-01-20 21:12 ` Marth64
2025-01-20 22:25 ` Nicolas George
2025-01-20 22:44 ` Marth64
2025-01-20 23:28 ` Marth64
2025-01-22 12:39 ` Nicolas George
2025-01-27 20:39 ` Jan Ekström
2025-01-27 20:55 ` Timo Rothenpieler
2025-01-20 22:44 ` compn
2025-01-20 22:14 ` Leo Izen
2025-01-21 1:26 ` Michael Niedermayer
2025-01-21 1:56 ` Soft Works
2025-01-21 2:38 ` Michael Niedermayer
2025-01-21 3:22 ` Soft Works
2025-01-21 3:56 ` Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
2025-01-21 4:03 ` Soft Works
2025-01-21 4:07 ` Marth64
2025-01-21 7:17 ` Nicolas George
2025-01-21 1:57 ` compn
2025-01-21 2:41 ` Michael Niedermayer
2025-01-21 2:56 ` James Almer
2025-01-21 3:34 ` Soft Works
2025-01-21 11:51 ` Niklas Haas
2025-01-21 17:55 ` Frank Plowman
2025-01-21 18:20 ` Niklas Haas
2025-01-21 12:04 ` Niklas Haas
2025-01-21 15:39 ` Lynne
2025-01-21 15:54 ` Michael Niedermayer
2025-01-21 16:14 ` Soft Works [this message]
2025-01-22 0:38 ` Soft Works
2025-01-22 1:08 ` Marth64
2025-01-22 2:00 ` Soft Works
2025-01-22 6:41 ` martin schitter
2025-01-25 7:54 ` Soft Works
2025-01-25 19:17 ` martin schitter
2025-01-25 22:20 ` Marth64
2025-01-21 16:22 ` James Almer
2025-01-21 17:48 ` Michael Niedermayer
2025-01-21 17:57 ` James Almer
2025-01-21 18:14 ` Niklas Haas
2025-01-25 6:57 ` Rémi Denis-Courmont
2025-01-21 16:37 ` James Almer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DM8P223MB0365638F54A577B0B669A81CBAE62@DM8P223MB0365.NAMP223.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM \
--to=softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org \
--cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:
git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git
# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \
ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com
public-inbox-index ffmpegdev
Example config snippet for mirrors.
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git