On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 2:30 PM Niklas Haas via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:32:02 +0200 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote: > > Hi > > > > Should we use a Merge or Cherry picks for integrating Pauls work ? > > > > Following are 2 plans, as we execute either we may run into issues > > and of course adapt them as needed. (or even switch) > > > > Option M: > > This would be a merge of pauls last revission before files where > > switched to GPL and the command line tool to AGPL > > > > It would include all changes (except what is intentionally skiped) > > (This will look similar to how almpeg looks now) > > > > Fate tests would be added after the merge where sample media is > > publically available on our server. > > Reviews of Individual modules can be done after the merge where > > people want to do that. > > > > Option C: > > Individual Modules (Codecs, Filters, Demuxers) would be submitted > > as patch(sets) > > > > This would include only the picked changes. Changes noone picks and > > posts would be missing. > > > > Each would go through the review process (some likely with "apply > > after timeout"). And during that review fate tests would be added > > where public samples are on our server. > > > > M would likely integrate more changes, C less changes. C may be more work. > > > > We currently have a point on the wiki for STF 2025 that would fund each > > integrated module with 900€. > > That way, whoever adds fate tests, makes changes the community wants in > > a review, fixes bugs found by tests or review, could be funded. > > D > > Since you tagged the GA on this, I am going to go ahead and request that > a formal GA vote, which I assume will be conducted before any action, must > have the option to vote that we respect Paul's request (and arguably, his > legal right) to not merge his work into FFmpeg. > > Even if you personally think the risk of Paul litigating FFmpeg in response > is neglible, and are willing to shoulder the potential costs of a legal battle > on your own shoulders, I do not think it sets a good precedent and will be > potentially damaging to the FFmpeg project's public image. > > > It is possible that teh community adjusts the exact STF task / work / ... > > before its deadline. > > I think that SPI/STF projects should also be voted on by the GA before being > approved for inclusion in the contract proposal. > > We already have the infrastructure for this in place, and I am sure that the > majority of the GA members would rather spend 5 minutes of their time > reviewing each project proposal rather than having it handled in an ad-hoc > manner. > > The last STF round already received a number of criticisms about lack of > transparency, so I think this would be a step in the right direction.
Absolute and strong +1, this is the better (series of) vote(s) to have. Thanks Niklas, All the best, Dee _______________________________________________ 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".
