On 08/05/2025 14:26, softworkz . wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne >> Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2025 14:00 >> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/5] doc/developer: Add subsection about >> patch submission via FFstaging >> >> On 08/05/2025 13:33, softworkz . wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne >>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2025 13:20 >>>> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/5] doc/developer: Add subsection about >>>> patch submission via FFstaging >>>> >>>> On 08/05/2025 12:22, ffmpegagent wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: softworkz softworkz@hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> softworkz (5): >>>>> doc/developer: Move checklist into Submitting Patches chapter >>>>> doc/developer: Move codecs/formats checklist into Development Policy >>>>> chapter >>>>> doc/developer: Reorder Submission procedures content >>>>> doc/developer: Merge Review paragraphs and deduplicate >>>>> doc/developer: Add subsection about patch submission via FFstaging >>>>> >>>>> doc/developer.texi | 234 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> base-commit: 1b643e3f65d75a4e6a25986466254bdd4fc1a01a >>>>> Published-As: https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg/releases/tag/pr- >> ffstaging- >>>> 76%2Fsoftworkz%2Fsubmit_website_update-v1 >>>>> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg pr-ffstaging- >>>> 76/softworkz/submit_website_update-v1 >>>>> Pull-Request: https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg/pull/76 >>>> >>>> No. >>>> We're not going to accept patches via github. Not when we're going to >>>> enable the forgejo instance soon, as there's an agreement. >>> >>> >>> This is not about patch acceptance on GitHub. It doesn't stand in >> contradiction >>> or competition to ForgeJo (which I do support moving to). >>> >>> It is simply a tool for sending patches to the mailing list. It has no value >>> outside of the ML workflow. The service is public, everybody can use it, >>> patches arrive on the ML - nobody needs to care where they're coming from >>> or how they were generated. >>> >>> All my patches are going this route, btw. >> You're free to use any tool you like. But this patchset makes it official. >> Pointing out that it's just a service or a tool that anyone can run is >> in conflict with the fact that. > > Hey Lynne, > > I'm afraid, I can't follow. What do you mean? > > "..in conflict with the fact that" > > - all my patches are going this route? > - I'm free to use any tool I like? > - this patchset makes it official that an online-version of "send-patch" exists? > - it's just a service or a tool that anyone can run? > > And which bad thing exactly does this patchset make official? If its mentioned as part of our documentation, it's official.