On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 8:12 AM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Rémi Denis-Courmont (12023-12-07): > > You have had heated arguments against Paul in recent times too. You have > also > > argued a lot of exercising your review privileges, which sounds like a > very > > libavish notion to me > > Only because you were not there at the time to get a first-hand > impression. That patches should be reviewed if possible was the policy > way before libav. That came with a set of implicit rules: waiting a few > days, then pinging, then waiting a few days and only then pushing > without review. The role of maintainer would affect the reasonable value > for “a few” days. > > Paul insistence on pushing after barely 24 hours on code with a > maintainer that is not him always contradicting the way of doing things. > > Furthermore, his refusal to give more time to the maintainer when asked > to is not just that: it is a level of rudeness and incivility > incompatible with working together with other people. > > But Paul's attitude was annoying but never a real problem: resist his > eagerness a little and soon he finds something else to do and forgets > about pushing immediately for weeks or months. > > For reference, libav turned the practice that patches should be reviewed > into a hard rule that patches must be reviewed. At the same time, since > they had kicked out or disgusted a significant part of the projects' > maintainers, they had nobody capable of actually reviewing the code. As > a result, when a patch was proposed by a major libav contributor, after > the ping somebody else who did not know the code would post a clueless > “LGTM”. > > (The online archives of libav-devel seem to have disappeared, so I > cannot link to the example I bookmarked.) > I am not too sure that bringing up a topic from 12 days ago with arguments from 12 years ago is bringing any value to the conversation. Just as a note, remember that a clueless LGTM is a better review than NO review, and in fact it's the system that it's employed in any modern software house: the master branch is usually protected and any PR/MR needs both CI pass and at least a read from a developer. Oh and for the sake of your (and our readers') time, don't bother replying, I'm not interested in discussing 12 years ago affairs or modern development practices here. I do invite you to evaluate whether your vision of ffmpeg is still the one shared by the community as a whole though. Regards -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
