On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 05:31:39PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 07:30:24PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:49:35PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > ffserver had 14 commits to it in about the last month > > > > > > > > > > That's also pretty close to the number of commits in the last years. > > > > > > > > > > Good will in the last weeks is not enough of a technical > > > > > merit/justification to prevent the removal of junk code scheduled for > > > > > deletion for a long time now. > > > > > > > > why do you call it junk ? > > > > > > because it's highly dependent on internal stuff, very limited, completely > > > untested, unmaintained for several years but still contains a ton of > > code. > > > > > > > and the sheduling for deletion was conditional on it not being fixed > > > > IIRC. > > > > Why the hurry to remove it while people work on fixing it ? > > > > its not blocking anything ATM AFAIK > > > > > > There is no hurry, but piling up a bunch patches to fix small things just > > > to use it as an argument to say "hey look now it's maintained" in order > > to > > > save it from being killed is really annoying. The people interested in it > > > had years to act. > > > > > > > > You can fix a ton of little things in it, but unless the fundamental > > > problems are addressed (ZERO internal API usage + at least partial FATE > > > coverage) it's pointless > > > > of course the goal is ZERO internal API usage + at least partial FATE > > coverage. > > Well in fact the lack of fate tests have been the primary reason > > why i didnt fix some of the API issues years ago. I felt uneasy > > changing it without regression tests > > > > > > > and will be seen as yet another case of "KEEP > > > EVERYTHING FOREVER" toxic mentality. > > > > The opposit is toxic too > > > I'm perfectly fine with keeping the code, just not in the ffmpeg tree. > Please move it to its own tree. >
> Everybody wants it out. Please follow majority. Some people want it out yes, how many and what the majority want i do not know. Some people also wanted all tools treated equally and moved out (again i dont know how many support that) Spliting just ffserver out means more work for whoever maintains it setting up seperate infrastructure, seperate coverity, coverage, fate, ... theres a lot of work in all this, its long term continuous effort and this is time that wont be spent on FFmpeg. I dont know if people want me and reynaldo to spend less time on FFmpeg, but time is a finite resource. If ffserver is maintained externally it would mean a noticable hit in maintaince man hours of FFmpeg. Now it might be that ffserver being pushed out would kill it. But really as dumb as i am, i dont belive theres a majority who wants to kill FFserver when there are people who actively work on it and care about it. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel