Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/5] doc/developer: Add subsection about patch submission via FFstaging

[Lynne]

On 08/05/2025 14:26, softworkz . wrote:

-----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?

If its mentioned as part of our documentation, it's official.

OpenPGP_0xA2FEA5F03F034464.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
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".