On 15/07/2025 03:09, Martin Storsjö wrote: > 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. >
+1 -- Frank
OpenPGP_0x03A84C6A098F2C6B.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
