> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne
> Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2025 14:00
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/5] doc/developer: Add subsection about
> patch submission via FFstaging
>
> On 08/05/2025 13:33, softworkz . wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne
> >> Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2025 13:20
> >> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/5] doc/developer: Add subsection about
> >> patch submission via FFstaging
> >>
> >> On 08/05/2025 12:22, ffmpegagent wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: softworkz softwo...@hotmail.com
> >>>
> >>> softworkz (5):
> >>> doc/developer: Move checklist into Submitting Patches chapter
> >>> doc/developer: Move codecs/formats checklist into Development Policy
> >>> chapter
> >>> doc/developer: Reorder Submission procedures content
> >>> doc/developer: Merge Review paragraphs and deduplicate
> >>> doc/developer: Add subsection about patch submission via FFstaging
> >>>
> >>> doc/developer.texi | 234 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> base-commit: 1b643e3f65d75a4e6a25986466254bdd4fc1a01a
> >>> Published-As: https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg/releases/tag/pr-
> ffstaging-
> >> 76%2Fsoftworkz%2Fsubmit_website_update-v1
> >>> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg pr-ffstaging-
> >> 76/softworkz/submit_website_update-v1
> >>> Pull-Request: https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg/pull/76
> >>
> >> No.
> >> We're not going to accept patches via github. Not when we're going to
> >> enable the forgejo instance soon, as there's an agreement.
> >
> >
> > This is not about patch acceptance on GitHub. It doesn't stand in
> contradiction
> > or competition to ForgeJo (which I do support moving to).
> >
> > It is simply a tool for sending patches to the mailing list. It has no value
> > outside of the ML workflow. The service is public, everybody can use it,
> > patches arrive on the ML - nobody needs to care where they're coming from
> > or how they were generated.
> >
> > All my patches are going this route, btw.
> You're free to use any tool you like. But this patchset makes it official.
> Pointing out that it's just a service or a tool that anyone can run is
> in conflict with the fact that.
Hey Lynne,
I'm afraid, I can't follow. What do you mean?
"..in conflict with the fact that"
- all my patches are going this route?
- I'm free to use any tool I like?
- this patchset makes it official that an online-version of "send-patch" exists?
- it's just a service or a tool that anyone can run?
And which bad thing exactly does this patchset make official?
>From my point of view, I would be concerned about this, if - and only if -
>there
was a risk (or chance) that a secondary platform of communication or
collaboration could arise from it. I am totally against that, same like
I'm strongly opposing a side-by-side of ML and ForgeJo. There must be a single
point of truth and focus for all members. Any kind of "a little here and a
little
there" would be the worst possible outcome as far as I see it.
Regarding FFstaging though, there's no such risk (ask me "why" if you wanna
know).
Best wishes
sw
_______________________________________________
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".
