Hi Niklas On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Niklas Haas via ffmpeg-devel wrote: [...] > > Second, a dependancy on gitlab-CI is not acceptable > > We need to be able to run the full relevant test coverage ourselves, > > under FFmpeg-controlled infrastructure > > I think this may have been a simple misunderstanding? This PR does not add a > dependency on any external CI to run checkasm tests. All of FFmpeg's checkasm > tests are still defined locally, and run locally, inside FFmpeg's own CI. > > The references to external CI, as was pointed out by Martin, are for > checkasm's *own* self-tests, useful only to developers of libcheckasm itself. > Something that FFmpeg's checkasm does not currently have at all, so even with > those self-checks removed, the status quo gets no worse.
The status does get worse.
before:
all components that have tests, are tested on FFmpeg infra
after the PR:
not all components that have tests, are tested on FFmpeg infra
The effect of this is that someone making chnages cannot do so using
FFmpeg infrastructure for testing.
>
> > Third, the copyright and authorship situation needs clarification.
>
> I think this was sufficiently addressed by Martin. Actually, if you are
> worried about transparent copyright/authorship information, that would be a
> point in favor of a merge (or submodule), rather than a squashed code dump.
Iam not advocating a squashed code dump
[...]
> > My permission for relicensing was conditional on the resulting
> > project being hosted on code.ffmpeg.org.
> > That condition was never fulfilled. So unless I am missing
> > something, that statement is at best
> > incomplete and may be misleading.
>
> Can you clarify which exact commit of yours do you think that libcheckasm
> infringing the copyright of?
I did not review the 651 commits and i made no claim about any infringment (or
the lack thereof)
My point was that I was asked about relicensing, and my agreement was
conditional on the resulting project being hosted on code.ffmpeg.org
And also there was the general claim that it includes relicensed code from
FFmpeg
>
> >
> > Fifth,
> > the libcheckasm work was done by FFlabs people and discussed in
> > FFlabs meetings.
>
> I don't see any FFlabs member in the list of authors you listed above. As you
> are no doubt aware, the bulk of the work was authored by myself and Martin,
> neither of whom, to my knowledge, is employed by FFlabs.
You where frequently in FFlabs meetings talking about checkasm
And i call people associated with FFlabs, "FFlabs people", note i did not
use the term "employee"
>
> > So unless I misunderstand the situation, we seem to have funded
> > work that now removes FFmpeg attribution or identity,
>
> When you say "we", do you refer to the FFmpeg project, or the private
> consulting company you are a co-founder of?
The FFmpeg project has to the best of my knowledge not spend money on this.
>
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but from where I stand this proposal
> > raises significant technical,
> > governance, infrastructure, and attribution concerns, and I do not
> > think it should be merged in its current form.
>
> You have raised infrastructure and attribution concerns. What technical
> concerns did I miss?
The testing issue is one technical concern.
More broadly, I also consider the maintenance and integration model a technical
concern:
if FFmpeg adopts this, then updating, validating, and debugging an important
part of the testing stack should remain practical under FFmpeg-controlled
infrastructure and workflows.
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Some Animals are More Equal Than Others. - George Orwell's book Animal Farm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
