Le sunnuntaina 3. marraskuuta 2024, 1.56.26 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > Should we move to a different development system ?
Simply no. The issue is the review and merge process, not the software development as such. E-mail was not designed to do code reviews. It does a pretty poor job at in- depth code review, and even worse job at tracking patchsets. Maybe some day Git itself will be extended to provide some form of code review support, but I doubt this. Or maybe some other VCS with such support will outshine Git, but I doubt that even more. In the mean time, the only options for the review process are email and web interfaces. Web interfaces are nowhere near ideal, but having done considerable review work with both alternatives, it is clear to me that they are a hell of a lot better than email. > I dont know, but I belive we should carefully consider if we want to move to > a gitlab like system that is a commercal / corporate and not community > driven system that we can get stuck in. My gut feeling is that, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, communities are better off with an open-source yet commercial offering supported by a viable business, than with an also open-source project precariously maintained by a small community of hobbyists. With that said, I think most people (including myself) are not familiar with the community-based options such as Gitea or its fork Forgejo. If they address merge request and code reviews as Gitlab, I think most of the Gitlab proponents here would be content with moving to that instead. > Companies get sold change owner/leader, and in no time gitlab can be owned > by microsoft or another corporation Nobody seriously suggested switching to proprietary forges such as Github or Gitee (or at least not this time around). > and be merged with github or similar for example. > Also i have a dislike for these browser based systems. That's beside the question really. I don't exactly love Gitlab either, or web apps in general. I just dislike the bugged email-based workflow even worse. And there are currently no alternative: I wouldn't mind a native desktop app, but I don't think that such thing exists, nor that it would be viable without support at the Git level (i.e. storing the review data in Git rather than in a relational database). > Should we move to videolan? This is a seperate question and has nothing to > do with changing the "development system" ? > We can install gitlab on our infrastructure, if the community decides that > it wants gitlab. We can also install anything else the community wants. If > people do move to videolan, i will not come along. I see not the slightest > reason to give up our independance. TBH moving to VideoLAN is a purely practical question. That means Thresh and other VideoLAN admins would do the maintenance, and the VideoLAN foundation would pay for the hosting. In other words, nobody here has to be burdened with additional work and cost. The community will always have the option to move to another host thanks to Git's decentralised design. The only thing to worry about would be losing the requests and issues history. But even that could probably be copied and archived elsewhere regularly if you are afraid that VideoLAN would turn evil. All other things being equal, I aree with you that it would seem more sensible for FFmpeg to host its own web forge - but it is questionable that all relevant things are equal as of yet in terms of how VideoLAN and FFmpeg infrastructures are managed. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
