On Tue, Mar 24, 2026, at 3:23 PM, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote: > If you mean that checkasm would be hosted on code.ffmpeg.org, then yes, > that would address the main concern I raised. > > If you have a more specific setup in mind, please elaborate. > > thx
Code is now at https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/checkasm However, I'm not the best at CI, so I would appreciate if somebody else could port the CI checks to run locally on foregejo (if possible). Either way, this is still a strict improvement over the status quo, even without tests, so I don't think missing local testing should be a blocker anymore? Regarding the preferred method of integrating this into FFmpeg/FFmpeg, I will start a GA vote in 48 hours with the following options: * A: Plain code dump (as v1 of this PR) of only relevant files * B: Git subtree with full history * C: Git subtree with squashed history * D: Git subtree with squashed history, amended to remove unnecessary files * D: Git submodules See also https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/22546#issuecomment-32978 for a summary of the pros/cons of each approach. > > [...] > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend > to be. -- Socrates > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > Attachments: > * signature.asc _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
