On 1/12/19, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > Hendrik Leppkes (12019-01-11): >> Its everyones right to keep their finances private. Would I be forced >> to disclose my hourly wages and then determine how long I worked on a >> patch, just because I did it during my day job? Thats not going to >> happen. >> >> To take a line from your post: >> Are you against privacy? > > I grant you these were cheap theatricals. But to answer your question > seriously: I am against absolute unconditional privacy, yes. Some things > deserve privacy, some things do not; I personally believe that economic > matters rather fall in the second category. > > In the particular instance you are evoking, the commit message could > just say "developed as part my regular job at $company", I consider that > enough disclosure for the purpose. And I wonder why you would want to > keep that much hidden. > >> Patches should generally be considered on their own merit. > > That is true. And patches should be reviewed and discussed until they > are of top quality. You know as well as me that it is not what is > happening: there are too many patches and too little time available from > competent developers; as a result, some code of mediocre quality have > been pushed, and some committers have explicitly stated they would > bypass technical objections to their patches. And now it appears that > was the result of sponsorships...
Citation needed. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
