Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [TC] checkasm: use pointers for start/stop functions

From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [TC] checkasm: use pointers for start/stop functions
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <Na8z3HG--3-9@lynne.ee> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13eaceb-33c1-e82f-be73-e469836debde@martin.st>

Jul 24, 2023, 23:27 by martin@martin.st:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
>> Since you're giving zero valid reasons, I'm invoking the TC.
>>
>
> Just for public record and visibility:
>
> The TC has discussed the matter at hand. Overall, the TC considered that the approach of using an indirect call seemed tolerable given the benefits and could be accepted if necessary. But avoiding the indirect call unless there actually are multiple timing providers would be even better, retaining the same low overhead as before.
>
> As the updated patchset seems to implement that, we consider the case closed - and actual TC involvement wasn't needed after all here.
>
> // Martin Storsjö, on behalf of the FFmpeg Technical Committee
>

I do think TC involvement here was unnecessary - I do not object to this
version of the patch, so LGTM.
I do agree with the decision overall, but this is nothing that couldn't
be solved with a 3 minute discussion.

I think, however, the process has become rather opaque in this case.
Usually, there has to be a clear writeup of the issue, with all context
removed, that all parties have to agree on is presentable to the TC
for guidelines. In the past, whenever developers have thrown in random
comments for a TC discussion, this has been followed, and the TC
has not responded, but what makes this case so special, when this
was also the case?

Plus, even now, I have zero idea who is on the TC - it has been three years
since it was made, and although it's not meant to last for so long, I doubt
there's a need for a vote as the final results would probably remain the
same. But I would like to know who is still actively involved, and whether
all of the people on the TC discussed this, as it's necessary to make a decision.

If this was an informative guideline, rather than an actual decision where
all members voted and agreed, I think this should be stated.

If the TC were to actively get involved and give decisions without following
proper procedures, it would do more than what the TC was meant to do -
resolve issues.
_______________________________________________
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".