James Almer (12019-01-13): > (1) is not an issue, It is an issue because it makes the rest possible. After all, people whose main motivation is code quality would want their code reviewed.
> (2) and (3) are the issue, and depending on the > developer's reaction at reviews and request for fixes, it should result > in the removal of commit rights. I was not ready to go that way, but since you put that on the tale, be aware that I will hold you to it. > Does > the recent patch by Paul that prompted this abomination of a patch fit > the above criteria? If they happened in the future and not in the past (decisions should not be retroactive), I would consider this: https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-December/237979.html https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-December/238166.html (I notice that you did call him out on the second, and I appreciate it) to count as strikes one and two. > And (5) is completely irrelevant for the above. Bad code is bad code, > and bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of the incentive behind it. I am not very surprised to see technical types ignoring sociological evidence, but it is saddening. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
