On Tue, 12 Aug 2025, 04:11 Michael Niedermayer,
wrote:
> Hi Lynne
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> > Recently, the issue of plugins was raised.
> >
> > Michael pushed a patch to enable out of tree branches to be freely added
> to
>
> please look at this before you frea
Hi Lynne
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> Recently, the issue of plugins was raised.
>
> Michael pushed a patch to enable out of tree branches to be freely added to
please look at this before you freak out and insta revert things again:
https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmp
Lynne (HE12025-08-11):
> Recently, the issue of plugins was raised.
>
> Michael pushed a patch to enable out of tree branches to be freely added to
> FFmpeg. I did not very much like the option of having officially-endorsed
> source plugins, as to me, it moved all the burden of maintenance to FFmp
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> Recently, the issue of plugins was raised.
>
> Michael pushed a patch to enable out of tree branches to be freely added to
> FFmpeg. I did not very much like the option of having officially-endorsed
> source plugins, as to me, it moved all t
Hi Lynne
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 03:38:31PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> On 11/08/2025 22:10, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi Lynne
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> > [...]
> > > To me, at least, I can imagine five options:
> > >
> > > Option 1 - we have an official bi
Hi Lynne
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 03:25:13PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
[...]
> We are all very busy volunteers. Asking us to periodically inspect all
> projects included as source plugins for LGPL/GPL violations after an
> unreviewed policy change by a single maintainer is overtly wrong.
Noone is asking
On 11/08/2025 22:10, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi Lynne
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
[...]
To me, at least, I can imagine five options:
Option 1 - we have an official binary plugin interface, free for
everyone to use with no limitation.
That requires so
On 11/08/2025 21:43, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi Lynne
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
Recently, the issue of plugins was raised.
Michael pushed a patch to enable out of tree branches to be freely added to
FFmpeg. I did not very much like the option of having officiall
On August 11, 2025 6:10:52 AM PDT, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> > Option 3 - we have an official source plugin interface, free for
> >everyone to use, with license limitations. All source plugins
> >The list of so
On August 11, 2025 5:22:26 AM PDT, Lynne wrote:
> I would like to hear other options or suggestions that developers may have,
> and ultimately, if there's a consensus on the amount of options that that the
> project would benefit from having a plugins interface, a vote on the type of
> interfac
Hi Lynne
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
[...]
> To me, at least, I can imagine five options:
>
> Option 1 - we have an official binary plugin interface, free for
>everyone to use with no limitation.
That requires someone to create that "binary plugin interface
Hi Lynne
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> Recently, the issue of plugins was raised.
>
> Michael pushed a patch to enable out of tree branches to be freely added to
> FFmpeg. I did not very much like the option of having officially-endorsed
> source plugins, as to me, it m
12 matches
Mail list logo
