On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Do people want Forgejo or Gitlab on code.ffmpeg.org for testing?
F. code.ffmpeg.org should run Forgejo
G. code.ffmpeg.org should run Gitlab
No strong opinion between the two. I have a lot of experience with Gitlab
(which I find quite workable - although perhaps not the nicest thing in
the world), no experience with Forgejo.
* and a month or 2 after that we can re-asses how many people use
code.ffmpeg.org
and how many use the ML. Then we could decide to keep using both
in parallel or switch back to ML or just use code.ffmpeg.org. Or in fact
we could switch between Gitlab or Forgejo here still as well.
I'd like to point out that we probably shouldn't be flip-flopping too much
between different tools - as the review history of patches ideally should
be kept available for future readers of the code as well. But running a
couple-month experiment and then deciding to switch fully or not, sounds
like a reasonable way to me. But the end goal should be one canonical
tool/process, not many in parallel IMO.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
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".
