From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86E4A4C393 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 09:59:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6217A68CD28; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:59:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AE3368BA2A for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:59:09 +0300 (EEST) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 ( name = phare.normalesup.org ) Received: from phare.normalesup.org (phare.normalesup.org [129.199.129.80]) by nef.ens.fr (8.14.4/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id 5729x80b011186 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 11:59:08 +0200 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 618DE2EFE3; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 11:59:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 11:59:08 +0200 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Sat, 02 Aug 2025 11:59:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Recommendations to facilitation patch reviews on forgejo/ML? X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Romain Beauxis (HE12025-08-01): > Part of my question is: how should people know what are the area you > are responsible for and who to contact when working on specific areas? I know it and I am perfectly fine with reading the summary line of every submitted patch to see if I need to open it. Anything less would be irresponsible for somebody who have contributed to multiple parts of the code anyway. The issue is afterwards. Right now, if the summary tells me I should be interested, it takes me one key to start reading the patch and one key to start reviewing it. With the new proposal, it takes multiple clicks: that is not acceptable. Our problem is not that we do not get enough patches, our problem is that we do not have enough people with the knowledge and will to review them. So, how would you qualify a measure that (1) brings more patches and (2) cause more work to the people who might review them? Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".