> On May 15, 2025, at 23:27, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > Hi Zhao Zhili > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 06:58:54PM +0800, Zhao Zhili wrote: >> >> >>> On May 14, 2025, at 18:55, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Simple script to merge all source plugins. >> >> I think this is confusing. The operation of merging multiple branches can >> hardly be considered >> a plugin. > > Each branch (well, there is just one ATM) > > represents and contains exactly one plugin or you could also call it feature. > merging that branch integrates that feature / plugin. > > Its a very simple system, it achives many of the goals people have > 1. simple > 2. easy to maintain > 3. it does not allow binary blobs without source > 4. it allows people to develop code under their own rules
A plugin is accessories to the main project and cannot work independently on their own. If I understand correctly, this strategy is working with other forks. A fork can merge other forks as many as possible, and call itself the monolithic fork. I want plugin support, mainly due to slow and hard building issues. Current strategy doesn’t help in this case. > > Let me elaborate on 4. > We are not a closed source company, people have the right to work on what > they want to work on. I think 99% of us agree here > > Fact is, this does not work in ffmpeg-devel currently, several people have > had their work rejected for non technical and non legal reasons. > We could remove the most aggressive people, that would reduce this issue > or we could support plugins (source plugins or classical plugins the > details > dont matter as long as developers can develop their code on their own terms > and users can use them without censorship by someone) > We also could change the development model to be like linux where this > problem > does not exist like this. > > So really, the way i think you should view plugins (and it could be a > totally > different implementation of teh concept of a plugin than this here) > Is as a way to keep everyone in one team. > If we cant give people a way to develop code externally and still have > it accessible to users then we have to make it possible to develop > it inside ffmpeg. Or we will loose many new developers who all want to > develop something new and just cannot in this environment. > > That will lead to more conflicts and then the chance of people being kicked > out or leaving will also go up. And if 2 people disagree, the one who wants > to work should stay, and the one who wants to have a say in the work > of the other should leave. Its the obvious way. A person working > vs a person objecting to work. Which way will a project move forward ... > > I want to work, I want everyone else to be able to work, I want everyones > work to be available to the end user. > > thanks > > PS: we can of course rename merge-all-source-plugins if someone has a better > name > > [...] > > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > If you think the mosad wants you dead since a long time then you are either > wrong or dead since a long time. > > _______________________________________________ > 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". > _______________________________________________ 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".
