On 2017-11-27 15:03, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2017-11-26 22:57 GMT+01:00 Jim DeLaHunt <from.ffmpeg-...@jdlh.com>:
On 2017-11-26 03:42, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2017-11-26 9:31 GMT+01:00 Jim DeLaHunt <from.ffmpeg-...@jdlh.com>:
[...]
+
@subheading Subscribe to the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list.
-It is important to do this as the diffs of all commits are sent there
and
-reviewed by all the other developers. Bugs and possible improvements or
-general questions regarding commits are discussed there. We expect you
to
-react if problems with your code are uncovered.
+Diffs of all commits are sent to the
+@uref{https://lists.ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-cvslog,
ffmpeg-cvslog}
+mailing list. Some developers read this list to review all code base
changes
+from all sources. Subscribing to this list is not mandatory, if
+all you want to do is submit a patch here and there.
I am (still) against this change.
OK, what specifically are you against? More important, what are you in
favour of?
I have no issue with the current text.
With respect, this section of ffmpeg.org/develop.html is not intended
for an experienced, knowledgeable, deeply involved senior committer like
you. So it doesn't really matter that you have no issue with the
current text. What matters is whether a new developer, trying to learn
how to contribute to ffmpeg, has an issue with the text.
I can tell you that, as a new contributor reading this section with
fresh eyes, I most certainly do have an issue with this text. It says
things about how ffmpeg-cvslog are used that are flat out incorrect.
Incorrect instructions waste time and cause confusion.
If you believe that it is unclear that there is a difference between an
occasional contributor (who most likely would not read -devel nor
-cvslog) and a committer (who is supposed to read -cvslog), then
maybe a patch is useful.
I will point out that two more people, Ronald[1] and Rostislav[2], do
not behave in accordance with your belief that committers are supposed
to read -cvslog. How sure are you that your belief reflects what the
project actually expects?
I proposed my wording above. What wording describing -cvslog, which
corrects the incorrect information and reflects what your colleagues
tell you about how they use the list, would you accept?
I believe the difference could be considered common sense.
As I said in the thread about ffmpeg-devel[3], Your sense of what is
common might be biased by how much you know. I am here to tell you that
the paragraphs in this patch are not at all "common sense". New
contributors need to have them said out loud.
[1] http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/221152.html
[2] http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/221155.html
[3] http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/221199.html
My goal here is to fix the bug in ffmpeg.org/developer.html, in the
section which describes the -cvslog mailing list. I'll make the patch.
Just tell me what wording will pass review.
--
--Jim DeLaHunt, j...@jdlh.com http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
multilingual websites consultant
355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada
Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
