Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

tor 2024-05-02 klockan 13:44 -0400 skrev Vittorio Giovara:
> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
> accommodate
> both workflows, a main git{hub,lab} interface which can send and
> mirror the
> discussion happening on the mailing list for those who prefer emails.
> Such
> a project would be another good use of SPI funds.

If you want email, use email. While a point could be made that bridging
mailing list workflows and say gitlab would be useful, the fact that a
mailing list is "free form" will almost surely result in nearly
insurmountable impedance mismatches.

This said, I'm not opposed to switching workflow to say gitlab, though
personally I wish gitlab stopped requiring jabbascript. Gitea is better
in this regard.

Finally, email has staying power.

/Tomas
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Sat May 4, 2024 at 9:05 PM CEST, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:11:12AM +0800, flow gg wrote:
> > [...]
> > If you need to use git-send-email, I may not be able to submit any code
> > If you do not need to use git-send-email, it is troublesome for the
> > reviewer and the contributor
> > [...]
>
> [...]
> if you cannot use get-send-email. (misconfigured corporate firewalls?, north 
> korea?)
> you can create patches using git format-patch
> [...]
> then attach the created files to your mail or 2 mails, [...]
>
> > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
> > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
> > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> [...]

Hi all,

I just noticed that the SourceHut UI actually allows GitHub-like "fork"
workflow to accomodate people who are unable to use git-send-email.

I found the following video demo:
https://smlavine.com/blog/sourcehut-web-ui/sourcehut-web-ui.webm

Of course, this doesn't resolve the concerns over PRs/MRs being supposedly
more efficient for code review than ML, but it does solve the accessibility
issues for both sides rather nicely IMHO.

~ OF
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 10:14 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont  wrote:

> Le lauantaina 4. toukokuuta 2024, 23.35.34 EEST Michael Niedermayer a
> écrit :
> > now compare to the linux kernel
> > It uses mailing lists
>
> Sorry but that is at best misleading, and at worse, plain wrong.
>
> The top-level work flow for the Linux kernel is neither mailing list, nor
> web
> forge, but CLI pull/merge. The mailing list is used to discuss and to
> notify
> pending merge requests.
>
> As far as I know, some subgroups still use mailing list for actual patch
> submission and review, and some subgroups have already switched to web
> forges.
> And there are people complaining about the difficulty and exclusivity of
> the
> mailing list-based flow.
>
> > linux is not affraid to innovate to abadon tradition where new things
> > need to be tried.
>
> Well, yes, and accordingly some of the Linux maintainers have switched to
> web
> forges, AFAIU.
>
> > linux is strong as ever
>
> This is hardly a point of comparison. Linux gets support from hardware
> design
> and vending companies as well as from large users. Linux is pretty much an
> exception more than a rule in the overall OSS ecosystem.
>
> If you want to compare FFmpeg, take a low-level middleware project of
> similar
> age and size. For instance, QEMU switched to Gitlab.com a few years ago.
>
> > If you want to be like linux you need to be like linux.
>
> FFmpeg cannot and never will be like Linux. This is a silly argument.
> Nobody
> suggested moving FFmpeg to a tiered merge flow like what Linus Torvalds
> uses.
> The scale and scope of Linux is just so much larger.
>

Merge SDR into FFmpeg, FFmpeg scale and scope, suddenly becomes now much
higher than it was before.

If the project wants to stay relatively relevant and absolutely non-obscure
than it shall just keep continuing current policy of not accepting real new
features,
like native decoders and native demuxers and native filters, and keep only
funding maintenance work, also keep gate-keeping certain contributors,
also splitting contributors into different groups and polarizing those
groups by valuing them differently,
also associating some project contributors into new agencies where
contributing values back to the project is not main factor,
also doing questionable refactoring of working code with results of
questionable performance changes and questionable refactored code design
and quality,
also generally ignoring regressions and new or old bug and feature-request
user's reports,
also leaving the project fast without any notice for selfish reasons,
also using communication prone to different interpretations,
also not valuing new research and better and faster algorithms,
also still associating self as the project developer when major last
contribution to the project was in previous decade,
also not properly valuing writing native solutions that are better than
current state of art available in open source or in general,
also using real-life meetings between selected contributors for ensuring
unrelated personal business growth and/or increasing self net-worth for
selfish reasons,
also using obscure social-channels while attempting to raise the project
relevance and ensure future funding for the project to keep personal
business alive,
also not maintaining current infrastructure and investing in new
infrastructure to reduce new regressions and bugs popping up,
also labeling and name-calling and discrediting other contributors and even
their work for selfish and short-sighted reasons,
also accepting only some radically and obscurely strict technical process
of contributing and also labeling and alienating developers and developing
process non-conforming with that technical process.

This is the project recipe for success and relevance growth and fast
advance in popularity and real progress moving forward and for healthy and
prolific project future at all dimensions and fronts.


>
> --
> Rémi Denis-Courmont
> http://www.remlab.net/
>
>
>
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le lauantaina 4. toukokuuta 2024, 23.35.34 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> now compare to the linux kernel
> It uses mailing lists

Sorry but that is at best misleading, and at worse, plain wrong.

The top-level work flow for the Linux kernel is neither mailing list, nor web 
forge, but CLI pull/merge. The mailing list is used to discuss and to notify 
pending merge requests.

As far as I know, some subgroups still use mailing list for actual patch 
submission and review, and some subgroups have already switched to web forges. 
And there are people complaining about the difficulty and exclusivity of the 
mailing list-based flow.

> linux is not affraid to innovate to abadon tradition where new things
> need to be tried.

Well, yes, and accordingly some of the Linux maintainers have switched to web 
forges, AFAIU.

> linux is strong as ever

This is hardly a point of comparison. Linux gets support from hardware design 
and vending companies as well as from large users. Linux is pretty much an 
exception more than a rule in the overall OSS ecosystem.

If you want to compare FFmpeg, take a low-level middleware project of similar 
age and size. For instance, QEMU switched to Gitlab.com a few years ago.

> If you want to be like linux you need to be like linux.

FFmpeg cannot and never will be like Linux. This is a silly argument. Nobody 
suggested moving FFmpeg to a tiered merge flow like what Linus Torvalds uses. 
The scale and scope of Linux is just so much larger.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 4:35 PM Michael Niedermayer 
wrote:

> > - secure funding for larger projects
>
> what project you want to get funding for ?
> A wide range of things are funded, and last i asked when STF money was
> available
> i couldnt even find enough people willing to submit a project to reach
> 150k €
>
> hint hint: there is 2025 and we need maintaince projects to submit to STF
> in 2025
>

move the infrastructure and review process to github/gitlab/gitea/forgeio
-- 
Vittorio
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Zhao Zhili]

> 在 2024年5月5日，上午5:51，epira...@gmail.com 写道：
> 
> 
> 
>> On 4 May 2024, at 23:25, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:28:03PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
 On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via 
 ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>>> [...]
 What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based 
 workflow
 we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github 
 or gitlab.
 Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying 
 to see if those
 that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based 
 workflows.
>>> 
>>> Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
>>> There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.
>>> 
>>> I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
>>> feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
>>> between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
>>> prefer to work through their web browser to do so.
>>> 
>>> also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
>>> for 2025 for STF.
>>> We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
>>> one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.
>>> 
>>> thx
>> 
>> It seems like the strongest argument for sticking with the ML is from
>> experienced maintainers who don't want to jeopardise their existing
>> workflow; while the strongest argument for switching is from people
>> itching to try out new workflows.

It’s not “try out new workflows”, but current workflow is inefficient and 
unbearable for some of us.

>> So how about this for a plan...
>> 
>> Make a repo on SourceHut, not necessarily for FFmpeg itself but for
>> automated review tools (running fate tests, checking C11 compliance
>> etc.).  Their CI/CD system automatically runs those tests on every
>> patch, then we manually forward genuine issues to the ML.  That would
>> let experimenters show off new things, and would let maintainers
>> think through what their workflow would look like in a mixed
>> environment.  Then when we've got enough evidence to make a long-term
>> plan, we can wind the repo down without too much fuss.
> 
> I hardly see how SourceHut would improve much of any of the actual
> struggles we talked about in this thread tbh…
> 
> FWIW what most people are desiring is better review workflow/tooling
> than a mail client can not offer (easily) and making it easier for
> people to contribute by simply pushing a branch to their fork
> which is for better or worse what a lot of people are familiar with
> from GitHub.
> 
> Both of which is nothing SourceHut offers, to my knowledge.
> 
> So rather than spend efforts on something that only marginally improves
> upon what is currently used it would IMHO be way more useful to evaluate
> something like GitLab or Gitea/Forgejo.

+1

> 
>> ___
>> 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".

___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 4 May 2024, at 23:25, Andrew Sayers wrote:

> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:28:03PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel 
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based 
>>> workflow
>>> we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github 
>>> or gitlab.
>>> Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to 
>>> see if those
>>> that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based 
>>> workflows.
>>
>> Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
>> There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.
>>
>> I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
>> feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
>> between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
>> prefer to work through their web browser to do so.
>>
>> also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
>> for 2025 for STF.
>> We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
>> one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.
>>
>> thx
>
> It seems like the strongest argument for sticking with the ML is from
> experienced maintainers who don't want to jeopardise their existing
> workflow; while the strongest argument for switching is from people
> itching to try out new workflows.  So how about this for a plan...
>
> Make a repo on SourceHut, not necessarily for FFmpeg itself but for
> automated review tools (running fate tests, checking C11 compliance
> etc.).  Their CI/CD system automatically runs those tests on every
> patch, then we manually forward genuine issues to the ML.  That would
> let experimenters show off new things, and would let maintainers
> think through what their workflow would look like in a mixed
> environment.  Then when we've got enough evidence to make a long-term
> plan, we can wind the repo down without too much fuss.

I hardly see how SourceHut would improve much of any of the actual
struggles we talked about in this thread tbh…

FWIW what most people are desiring is better review workflow/tooling
than a mail client can not offer (easily) and making it easier for
people to contribute by simply pushing a branch to their fork
which is for better or worse what a lot of people are familiar with
from GitHub.

Both of which is nothing SourceHut offers, to my knowledge.

So rather than spend efforts on something that only marginally improves
upon what is currently used it would IMHO be way more useful to evaluate
something like GitLab or Gitea/Forgejo.

> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:28:03PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel 
> wrote:
> [...]
> > What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based 
> > workflow 
> > we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github 
> > or gitlab.
> > Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to 
> > see if those
> > that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based 
> > workflows.
> 
> Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
> There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.
> 
> I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
> feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
> between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
> prefer to work through their web browser to do so.
> 
> also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
> for 2025 for STF.
> We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
> one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.
> 
> thx

It seems like the strongest argument for sticking with the ML is from
experienced maintainers who don't want to jeopardise their existing
workflow; while the strongest argument for switching is from people
itching to try out new workflows.  So how about this for a plan...

Make a repo on SourceHut, not necessarily for FFmpeg itself but for
automated review tools (running fate tests, checking C11 compliance
etc.).  Their CI/CD system automatically runs those tests on every
patch, then we manually forward genuine issues to the ML.  That would
let experimenters show off new things, and would let maintainers
think through what their workflow would look like in a mixed
environment.  Then when we've got enough evidence to make a long-term
plan, we can wind the repo down without too much fuss.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 12:39:14PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:24 AM Michael Niedermayer 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:15:27AM -0700, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer <
> > mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But
> > Windows
> > > > is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the
> > same
> > > > legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> > > > >
> > > > > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical
> > new
> > > > innovation.
> > > >
> > > > Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> > > > repository, FFmpeg does
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its
> > not
> > > > a seperate
> > > > product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> > > > microsoft
> > > >
> > > > microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the
> > current
> > > > latest OS.
> > > > There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
> > > >
> > > > of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a
> > audio
> > > > search
> > > > news, travel, shoping.
> > > > These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont
> > know, i
> > > > suspect
> > > > google search is very good at finding google products.
> > > > Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
> > > >
> > > > But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> > > > Google Maps as first entry.
> > > >
> > > > or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> > > > many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> > > > there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> > > > that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> > > > Thats in stark contrast to
> > > > "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > > > innovation"
> > > > when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> > > > iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
> > > >
> > > > I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or
> > FFmpeg
> > > > will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that
> > doesnt
> > > > have an opposition to innovation.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> > > > people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> > > > 2nd step would be a vote.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a
> >
> > The examples i showed cover a wide range of software (An OS, A office
> > suite,
> > A web browser, an AI assitent, a search engine, web apps, and more)
> > and hardware like a phone, services like cloud
> >
> > For all of them its true that radical innovation was essential for success.
> >
> > our multimedia framework is not a special case relative to above
> >
> >
> > > network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
> > > because it's impossible but
> >
> > These sound like really bad ideas unrealated to innovation.
> >
> >
> > > because it's the wrong tool for the job -
> >
> > IMHO, this is missing the point a bit
> >
> > A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable
> > by
> > voice communication.
> > Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
> > Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
> > Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
> > ...
> >
> > A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
> > maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
> > its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
> > its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
> > its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i
> > have a deja vue feeling here
> >
> > (and you can continue this list with software, hardware and services from
> > other
> >  successfull companies, there is radical innovation everywhere)
> >
> > our repository is also not just the ffmpeg tool, there are libraries and
> > theres
> > ffmpeg, ffprobe, ffplay
> >
> > FFmpeg is a whole multimedia framework and there are many things we could
> > innovate
> > on.
> >
> > Also, i agree its important to listen to what the users want. But often
> > what they
> > ask for and what actually would help them most, can be different.
> >
> 
> This is many words to say that you're missing the point. Let me try in
> social media format
> 

> 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:45:20PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel 
wrote:
[...]
> What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based 
> workflow 
> we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or 
> gitlab.
> Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to 
> see if those
> that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based 
> workflows.

Such a thing could be quite useful to many more projects than just ffmpeg.
There are many older projects that use ML based workflows.

I imagine STF might be willing to fund such a thing if it is technically
feasable. As the goal of STF is about maintainance. And bridging the gap
between old ML and new browser based workflows allowing developers who
prefer to work through their web browser to do so.

also, we need to find maintaince related projects worth minimum 150k €
for 2025 for STF.
We cant do many of the things we do in 2024 for STF again as they where
one time things and STF doesnt like sponsoring adding new features.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 3:09 PM Michael Niedermayer 
wrote:

> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 02:04:16PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> > > > I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am
> stupid,
> > > > but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my
> area
> > > and
> > > > the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> > > > Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this
> is
> > > > because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to
> give
> > > > up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people
> > > around
> > > > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same
> > > problem
> > > > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> > > I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based
> > > workflows
> > > are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
> > > reference.
> > >
> > > With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git
> send-email
> > > can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The
> > > replies
> > > quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git
> send-email, I
> > > was using completely average providers and it was all pretty
> effortless,
> > > I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.
> > >
> > > > I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think
> people
> > > > are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> > > > reviewer of Review.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
> > > >
> > > > I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you
> > > are a
> > > > reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have
> made
> > > > some contributions.
> > > >
> > > > > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email
> > > provider
> > > > > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
> > >
> > > > > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have
> > > control
> > > > > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that
> rejects
> > > such
> > > > > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them
> properly.
> > > > I think I should have the right to contribute
> > > Likewise.
> > >
> > > Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was
> > > specifically
> > > reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use
> them,
> > > which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it
> might
> > > have
> > > sounded that way. Sorry about that.
> > >
> > > As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot
> > > about
> > > having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all
> parts
> > > of
> > > a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text
> > > attachments
> > > instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between
> > > attached
> > > patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
> > >
> >
> > Is it me or has this thread and topic run its course?
> > We understand your preference is email and it is duly noted, the
> > overwhelming majority of the community still seem to prefer
> github/gitlab.
> > Any further discussion at this point looks off topic, there are better
> > venues for discussing the technical merits of email vs github/gitlab.
>
> Is it me or are the top 3 people who objected to gitlab on vaccation,
> banned
> and busy ?
> Maybe we should wait for them to have an oppertunity to comment. One of
> them
> happens to be an experienced gitlab admin
>

If one is banned, then they lose the chance to express their opinion in the
community, it's the whole point of being in a community! You act civil and
your opinions are heard, you troll and you get banned, pretty simple to me.
If we ban people and then wait for them to be unbanned before we take
decisions defeats the whole point of being banned, and instead brings in
pointless filibustering. Maybe they should behave better and not get banned
instead?

For the other two, I think at least one is ok to use command line tools to
my knowledge and that is good enough to at least experiment with a move.
Hopefully we won't stall the move because 3 people vs 238 community members
said so, or do you think we need a vote by the GA on this?

At any rate, my point was that the discussion on github vs email here is
done, nothing can be added to sway either side that wasn't already said.
Since we're starting to see the negative effects of this discussion (our
inability to effectively ban people, making people feel gatekept, and so
on) I'd say it'd be more beneficial to move the agree to disagree
discussion elsewhere, in my 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 02:04:16PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> > > I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> > > but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area
> > and
> > > the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> > > Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> > > because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> > > up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
> > >
> > > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people
> > around
> > > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same
> > problem
> > > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> > I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based
> > workflows
> > are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
> > reference.
> >
> > With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git send-email
> > can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The
> > replies
> > quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git send-email, I
> > was using completely average providers and it was all pretty effortless,
> > I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.
> >
> > > I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
> > > are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> > > reviewer of Review.
> > >
> > > I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
> > >
> > > I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you
> > are a
> > > reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
> > > some contributions.
> > >
> > > > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email
> > provider
> > > > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
> >
> > > > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have
> > control
> > > > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects
> > such
> > > > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
> > > I think I should have the right to contribute
> > Likewise.
> >
> > Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was
> > specifically
> > reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use them,
> > which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it might
> > have
> > sounded that way. Sorry about that.
> >
> > As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot
> > about
> > having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all parts
> > of
> > a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text
> > attachments
> > instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between
> > attached
> > patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
> >
> 
> Is it me or has this thread and topic run its course?
> We understand your preference is email and it is duly noted, the
> overwhelming majority of the community still seem to prefer github/gitlab.
> Any further discussion at this point looks off topic, there are better
> venues for discussing the technical merits of email vs github/gitlab.

Is it me or are the top 3 people who objected to gitlab on vaccation, banned
and busy ?
Maybe we should wait for them to have an oppertunity to comment. One of them
happens to be an experienced gitlab admin

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Homeopathy is like voting while filling the ballot out with transparent ink.
Sometimes the outcome one wanted occurs. Rarely its worse than filling out
a ballot properly.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 09:11:12AM +0800, flow gg wrote:
> I saw about comparing emails and gitlab/hub .., I did not comprehensively
> understand their advantages and disadvantages, but I want to say that I
> support it to change to gitlab/hub
> 
> Simple reason:
> 
> If you need to use git-send-email, I may not be able to submit any code
> If you do not need to use git-send-email, it is troublesome for the
> reviewer and the contributor
> 
> In detail:
> 
> I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area and
> the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.

if anyone needs to install get-send-email see:
https://git-send-email.io/

if you cannot use get-send-email. (misconfigured corporate firewalls?, north 
korea?)
you can create patches using git format-patch
to turn the last 2 commits into patches
git format-patch -2

then attach the created files to your mail or 2 mails, or just copy and paste 
them
inline into mails. Make sure your mail client doesnt do word wraping or
other whitespace "cleanup"

Thats all there is to it. get-send-email is recommanded (because its very
easy normally) but git will work perfectly fine without it


> 
> Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
> me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
> as me, resulting in abandonment.

if our guides about how to submit patches are bad, our guides need to be
fixed.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Asymptotically faster algorithms should always be preferred if you have
asymptotical amounts of data


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:

> On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> > I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> > but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area
> and
> > the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> > Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> > because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> > up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
> >
> > Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people
> around
> > me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same
> problem
> > as me, resulting in abandonment.
> I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based
> workflows
> are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
> reference.
>
> With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git send-email
> can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The
> replies
> quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git send-email, I
> was using completely average providers and it was all pretty effortless,
> I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.
>
> > I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
> > are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> > reviewer of Review.
> >
> > I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
> >
> > I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you
> are a
> > reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
> > some contributions.
> >
> > > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email
> provider
> > > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
>
> > > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have
> control
> > > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects
> such
> > > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
> > I think I should have the right to contribute
> Likewise.
>
> Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was
> specifically
> reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use them,
> which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it might
> have
> sounded that way. Sorry about that.
>
> As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot
> about
> having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all parts
> of
> a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text
> attachments
> instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between
> attached
> patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
>

Is it me or has this thread and topic run its course?
We understand your preference is email and it is duly noted, the
overwhelming majority of the community still seem to prefer github/gitlab.
Any further discussion at this point looks off topic, there are better
venues for discussing the technical merits of email vs github/gitlab.
-- 
Vittorio
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CEST, flow gg wrote:
> I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
> but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area and
> the network. It is really not what I can solve.
> Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
> because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
> up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.
>
> Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
> me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
> as me, resulting in abandonment.
I feel it's worth pointing out that SourceHut and mailing list-based workflows
are becoming popular in some young-dev circles. I am in my twenties for
reference.

With that said, I did not realize how problematic setting up git send-email
can be with some providers when I wrote what you're replying to. The replies
quite surprised me honestly because when I first set up git send-email, I
was using completely average providers and it was all pretty effortless,
I just adjusted git's config and it worked perfectly.

> I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
> are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
> reviewer of Review.
>
> I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:
>
> I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you are a
> reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
> some contributions.
>
> > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider   
> >
> > has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can* 
> >
> > actually dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control
> > over the mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such
> > emails and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
> I think I should have the right to contribute
Likewise.

Regarding the part about rejecting patches as attachments, I was specifically
reacting to Rémi claiming that he can't dictate that people don't use them,
which technically he can. I never said it's a good idea, though it might have
sounded that way. Sorry about that.

As I said multiple times, I feel like contributing over email is a lot about
having good tooling. For example, the email client I use treats all parts of
a multipart message the same, so it has no issues replying to text attachments
instead of the message body. As such, there is no difference between attached
patches and patches in the message body with such a client.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:45 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 20.30.16 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > > You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to
> > > run a web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer
> > > system.
> > There is a huge difference between running a web browser and running
> > Firefox/Chrome that you're consistently ignoring. I absolutely don't
> > mind running Lynx... :)
>
> My point is that the requirement for *practical* *use* of an HTML5 web 
> browser 
> are lower than those for compiling, and running the test suite of, FFmpeg.
Performance-wise, you're probably right. I was talking more about
the technological complexity and the fact we have this oligopoly
of a handful of browsers by companies who can afford supporting
their development and you have to use one of them to be able to use
these platforms.

Here again you're saying "HTML5 browser", but the fact is that they don't
work on all HTML5-supporting browsers because of how complex the tech is.

As I said before, GH for example didn't work for me on a well-maintained
(but niche) Firefox fork even though the fork actually did have support
for an impressive amount of modern web technologies, including HTML5. It
just didn't happen to have support for all of it, because frankly that's
impossible unless you're a big company like Mozilla or Google, and so it
didn't work.

The article I linked in a separate reply is a good overview of the immense
technological complexity of modern web tech.

> Sure you can run Links, W3M or NCSA Mosaic with a lot lower requirements, and 
> Gitlab probably does not work under any of those. But the point is that 
> Chromium or Firefox are *not* really limitting factors here.
GitLab is blocking anything that doesn't run JS due to its use of Cloudflare,
and even back when it didn't, not a single portion of it worked without JS
because it uses it for everything.

As I wrote at the beginning of this thread, Gitea is the most accessible
of GitHub-like platforms. It worked well in Pale Moon IIRC and all the
non-interactive parts of the UI (viewing files, issues, pull requests, etc.)
seem to work without JS. I wouldn't expect to be able to submit an issue or
a pull request this way, but it's better than GitHub and much better than
GitLab. Also its UI is faster than GitLab and feels more reasonable.

Please consider it instead of GitLab if you need to transition away from
mailing lists.. I haven't seen any mentions of GitLab features missing
from Gitea, anyway.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[flow gg]

I saw about comparing emails and gitlab/hub .., I did not comprehensively
understand their advantages and disadvantages, but I want to say that I
support it to change to gitlab/hub

Simple reason:

If you need to use git-send-email, I may not be able to submit any code
If you do not need to use git-send-email, it is troublesome for the
reviewer and the contributor

In detail:

I have tried git-send-email, but it failed. You can say that I am stupid,
but I would say that this is because of various reasons such as my area and
the network. It is really not what I can solve.
Maybe I will spend a lot of energy trying it in the future, but this is
because I have submitted thousands of lines of code. I don't want to give
up. If it is from the beginning, it will cause abandonment.

Maybe I am younger here in FFMPEG. I have a lot of good young people around
me. They all use github/lab by default, and there will be the same problem
as me, resulting in abandonment.

I don't really care about the quality between these tools. I think people
are important. I only want to use it, and I can facilitate the real
reviewer of Review.

I don't know if I can say my personal feelings here, but I will say:

I feel despised by this passage, which makes me uncomfortable. If you are a
reviewer, maybe I have no chance to contribute, but anyway, I have made
some contributions.

> How can anyne use git, but not git send-email? Any develop email provider
HAS Support for External Clients Over SMTP. And I Believe You * Can *
Actually
Dictate that people doon't attach patches - if you have control over the
Mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
And auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

I think I should have the right to contribute

Ondřej Fiala  于2024年5月2日周四 22:25写道：

> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala" 
> a écrit :
> > >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> > >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> > >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> > >>
> > >> - Hendrik
> > >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> > >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> > >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
> >
> > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> you
> > slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today. Many email
> clients
> have support for threading, and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary
> depth. Using such a client with commands for moving between messages in a
> a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite usably in my
> opinion.
>
> > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
> don't
> > send patches that way.
> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can*
> actually
> dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
> mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
> and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.
>
> > >But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
> > >are you missing?
> >
> > Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and
> expand
> > context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
> I can sort of understand everything except the last one. What is "a proper
> listing of open MR" supposed to mean...? (I know what a merge request is,
> of course, but I don't get how the way GitLab lists them is supposedly
> superior to SourceHut's list of patches.)
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 20.30.16 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to
> > run a web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer
> > system.
> There is a huge difference between running a web browser and running
> Firefox/Chrome that you're consistently ignoring. I absolutely don't
> mind running Lynx... :)

My point is that the requirement for *practical* *use* of an HTML5 web browser 
are lower than those for compiling, and running the test suite of, FFmpeg.

Sure you can run Links, W3M or NCSA Mosaic with a lot lower requirements, and 
Gitlab probably does not work under any of those. But the point is that 
Chromium or Firefox are *not* really limitting factors here.

-- 
レミ・デニ-クールモン
http://www.remlab.net/



___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 4:41 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 15.58.50 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > > And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code
> > > review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing
> > > code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
> > 
> > Because your "optimizations" will make contributing to ffmpeg significantly
> > harder for people like me.
>
> All they do is make the first contribution harder because you have to create 
> an 
> account on, and clone the repository within, the web forge. Considering the 
> distribution between first-time contributions versus reviews and further-time 
> contributions, that is a very obviously worthy tradeoff.
>
> Note that I don't particularly prefer Gitlab vs email for submitting code. 
> They both have their pros and cons, and I do not really like either of them. 
> But Gitlab is so much easier for code review and merge, and it looks to me 
> that the shortage of reviewers is even more pressing than developers here.
Fair enough.

> You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to run 
> a 
> web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer system.
There is a huge difference between running a web browser and running
Firefox/Chrome that you're consistently ignoring. I absolutely don't
mind running Lynx... :)
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel]

> On May 3, 2024, at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:33 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is no technical plan how that would actually work in practice, and I
>> don't think it is even feasible. Not to speak of a realistic plan who would
>> actually implement it and in what time frame.
>> 
> 
> To clarify: I myself much prefer gitlab's workflow and would use that if it
> was available. I think providing a CLI-based workflow (which Anton and some
> others have requested) is feasible and fair. If an email variant thereof
> can be made and someone wants to fund it, I think that's reasonable. But it
> shouldn't block allowing more people to convert to a gitlab-style workflow,
> which I consider far superior over what we have now. End of clarification.

I think it's useful to separate out CLI-based workflow from email based 
workflow. 

For example with GitHub you can use the gh command line tool 
(https://github.com/cli/cli)  to do almost everything from the CLI. See 
outstanding 
pull requests, create a new pull request, check out a pull request, leave 
comments, 
approve, reject, etc. The only thing the official CLI tool itself doesn't offer 
is ability 
to add in-line comments.

If one really wants to avoid the browser for leaving in-line comments there are 
solutions integrated with popular editors to do this directly from the editor.

For those that like Neovim a full featured editor plugin like octo.nvim 
(https://github.com/pwntester/octo.nvim?tab=readme-ov-file#-pr-reviews)
can be used to do everything including code reviews with inline comments.

Similar solutions exist for Emacs. And the API is there to make something more 
customized if desired. For example a tool like "re" can open up $EDITOR and 
allow adding inline comments (https://github.com/jordanlewis/re).

This is for Github but Gitlab is popular enough that I'd expect the same to 
exist
there or at a minimum to be possible to bridge the gap (in general the github 
tooling
is more mature).

What doesn't exist (yet) is a way to keep people on the exact email based 
workflow 
we currently have, and have bi-directional sync with something like github or 
gitlab.
Such a thing could probably be built, but it might be worth first trying to see 
if those
that insist on sticking with the CLI can use one of the existing CLI based 
workflows.

- Cosmin





___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 15.58.50 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code
> > review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing
> > code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
> 
> Because your "optimizations" will make contributing to ffmpeg significantly
> harder for people like me.

All they do is make the first contribution harder because you have to create an 
account on, and clone the repository within, the web forge. Considering the 
distribution between first-time contributions versus reviews and further-time 
contributions, that is a very obviously worthy tradeoff.

Note that I don't particularly prefer Gitlab vs email for submitting code. 
They both have their pros and cons, and I do not really like either of them. 
But Gitlab is so much easier for code review and merge, and it looks to me 
that the shortage of reviewers is even more pressing than developers here.


The argument that people can't use web forges because they require too 
powerful computer system is bollocks. A system that can't show the Gitlab 
frontend is not going to be able to compile FFmpeg, forget run the test suite, 
in any practical time frame. Not to deny that there are performance 
challenges, but those lie on the server side.

You can't expect the whole community to accomodate your unwillingness to run a 
web browser or update a ridiculous underprovisioned computer system.

-- 
レミ・デニ-クールモン
http://www.remlab.net/



___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 3. toukokuuta 2024, 16.54.14 EEST Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> To clarify: I myself much prefer gitlab's workflow and would use that if it
> was available. I think providing a CLI-based workflow (which Anton and some
> others have requested) is feasible and fair. If an email variant thereof
> can be made and someone wants to fund it, I think that's reasonable. But it
> shouldn't block allowing more people to convert to a gitlab-style workflow,
> which I consider far superior over what we have now. End of clarification.

You can't have the cake and eat it. If we have to wait for a CLI workflow, for 
which no credible development plan exist, then we are stuck with email, and 
this is exactly "block[ing] allowing more prople to convert to a gitlab-style 
workflow".

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:33 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont  wrote:

>
>
> Le 3 mai 2024 14:28:59 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" 
> a écrit :
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" <
> rsbul...@gmail.com>
> >> a écrit :
> >> >On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> >> vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
> >> accommodate
> >> >> both workflows
> >> >
> >> >I agree with this.
> >>
> >> I vehemently disagree with this.
> >>
> >> Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful
> thinking
> >> and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
> >>
> >
> >Can you explain your disapproval? Is it that it needs work? Or money? Or
> do
> >you just think it's a bad idea? Or something else?
>
> There is no technical plan how that would actually work in practice, and I
> don't think it is even feasible. Not to speak of a realistic plan who would
> actually implement it and in what time frame.
>

To clarify: I myself much prefer gitlab's workflow and would use that if it
was available. I think providing a CLI-based workflow (which Anton and some
others have requested) is feasible and fair. If an email variant thereof
can be made and someone wants to fund it, I think that's reasonable. But it
shouldn't block allowing more people to convert to a gitlab-style workflow,
which I consider far superior over what we have now. End of clarification.

Ronald
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 3 mai 2024 15:58:50 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a écrit :
>On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:46 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le 2 mai 2024 22:32:16 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a écrit 
>> :
>> >On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> >> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
>> >> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> >> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter 
>> >> > > how
>> >> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>> >>
>> >> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
>> >> That's the whole point.
>> >This argument can actually go in both directions
>>
>> No, it can't.
>I wish your replies were more constructive

Then don't make ridiculously extreme arguments.

>> > Since the Web and web
>> >browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.
>>
>> I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web
>> applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous.
>A web application is just a bunch of JavaScript and/or Web Assembly
>running in a web browser that supports it.

By that logic, your mail client is just a bunch of C or C++ files compiled 
together, and your processor is just a bunch of VHDL synthesised into silicon. 
This is called a reduction to absurd fallacy.

I don't care how much you despise web development. That doesn't change the 
*fact* that Gitlab is designed to manage code reviews and merges and mail 
clients are *not*.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:46 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Since the Web and web
> >browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.
>
> I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web
> applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous.
By the way, speaking of ridiculous, I really recommend you read this:
https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 10:06 PM CEST, epirat07 wrote:
> On 2 May 2024, at 21:32, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> > Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client
> > can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used
> > to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic 
> > shell
> > scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things.
>
> So I first have to get proficient in some shell scripting gymnastics
Are you serious that as an open-source dev, you can't even write such a
trivial shell function?

> (and also switch to a completely different terminal-based mail client)
> so I can do proper reviews?
You can use any mail client that works well for you, I just showed what I
personally like. I remember seeing Greg KH (IIRC) using mutt for the same
purpose and I am sure it worked well for him as well. This is quite unlike
the GitHub/GitLab situation where if you use anything other than a recent
mainstream browser, it does not work AT ALL.

> Thats incredibly gatekeeping.
Hardly.

> > Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put 
> > together
> > a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a 
> > patch
> > and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other 
> > things to
> > adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a 
> > demo;
> > I am sure you could come up with something better.
> >
> > [1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends
>
> That seems to download some binary file? I have no idea what it is supposed 
> to be.
Sorry about that; the site picked the filename and I forgot to say that it's an 
mkv
file. Just save it with an `.mkv` suffix and play it with ffplay or similar.

> >> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a 
> >> good
> >> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.
> >>
> >> You are just being unwittingly elistist here.
> > I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be
> > when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such
> > issues.
> >
> > But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from
> > email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember 
> > how
> > I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a 
> > Firefox
> > fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you 
> > don't
> > care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app"
> > that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is 
> > excluded.
> > When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to 
> > download
> > mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I
> > wouldn't bother.
> >
> > So how is that any different?
>
> How is it different to download a well maintained recent software and open a 
> website,
> in comparison to learn how to setup a (complex) combination of tools just to 
> be able
> to easily contribute?
It's not a complex combination; it's just git, an email client, and standard
command line tooling.

But sure, if you don't even know basic shell, it might seem complex. I assumed
anyone contributing to a C library with accompanying command-line utilities
would know such basics.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:46 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le 2 mai 2024 22:32:16 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a écrit :
> >On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> >> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter 
> >> > > how
> >> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> >> > 
> >> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
> >>
> >> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
> >> That's the whole point.
> >This argument can actually go in both directions
>
> No, it can't.
I wish your replies were more constructive.

> > Since the Web and web
> >browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.
>
> I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web
> applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous.
A web application is just a bunch of JavaScript and/or Web Assembly
running in a web browser that supports it. The technologies that these
"applications" rely on are often available only in latest mainstream
browsers, everyone else is excluded. I experienced such exclusion first
hand in the past, which I mentioned in the email you're replying to.

I really don't see how I am being ridiculous by pointing that out.

> Your OS was originally meant to run bash, not a mail client, by that logic.
I really don't see how that follows the same logic, since a general purpose
OS is meant to run anything you want it to (that's the meaning of "general
purpose"), while a web browser was originally meant to, guess what, browse
the web.

Besides, the first version of Linux was released in 1991 and email existed
for many years at that time already.

> And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code
> review here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing
> code reviews and code merges, so why do you even care?
Because your "optimizations" will make contributing to ffmpeg significantly
harder for people like me.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 3 mai 2024 14:28:59 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje"  a 
écrit :
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont  wrote:
>
>> Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" 
>> a écrit :
>> >On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <
>> vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
>> accommodate
>> >> both workflows
>> >
>> >I agree with this.
>>
>> I vehemently disagree with this.
>>
>> Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful thinking
>> and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
>>
>
>Can you explain your disapproval? Is it that it needs work? Or money? Or do
>you just think it's a bad idea? Or something else?

There is no technical plan how that would actually work in practice, and I 
don't think it is even feasible. Not to speak of a realistic plan who would 
actually implement it and in what time frame.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:53 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont  wrote:

> Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje" 
> a écrit :
> >On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can
> accommodate
> >> both workflows
> >
> >I agree with this.
>
> I vehemently disagree with this.
>
> Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful thinking
> and the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
>

Can you explain your disapproval? Is it that it needs work? Or money? Or do
you just think it's a bad idea? Or something else?

Ronald
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 2 mai 2024 21:38:13 GMT+03:00, "Ronald S. Bultje"  a 
écrit :
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara 
>wrote:
>
>> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
>> both workflows
>>
>
>I agree with this.

I vehemently disagree with this.

Unless you are volunteering to write such a tool, this is wishful thinking and 
the result is that we stick to the mailing list workflow.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 2 mai 2024 22:32:16 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a écrit :
>On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
>> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
>> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
>> > 
>> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>>
>> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
>> That's the whole point.
>This argument can actually go in both directions

No, it can't.

> Since the Web and web
>browsers weren't meant for performing code review either.

I was obviously and explicitly talking about Github and Gitlab web 
applications, not the browsers. You're being ridiculous. Your OS was originally 
meant to run bash, not a mail client, by that logic.

And in the end, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you doing much code review 
here. This is all about optimising the workflow for people doing code reviews 
and code merges, so why do you even care?
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 2 May 2024, at 21:32, Ondřej Fiala wrote:

> On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
>>> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
 I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
 you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
>>>
>>> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>>
>> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
>> That's the whole point.
> This argument can actually go in both directions since the Web and web
> browsers weren't meant for performing code review either. If you remember,
> the Web was originally intended for sharing *documents*, which a MR page
> on GitLab definitely isn't.
>
> IMHO, the fact that something was intended for some use case does not imply
> that it's actually good for that use case. My point was that what it was
> meant for does not matter, what's important is if and how well it works
> for that use case.
>
>>> and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary depth.
>>
>> I don't care because *GitHub* is out of the race for other reasons anyway. I
>> have never had a situation whence *Gitlab* refused to add more comments to a
>> thread.
> I said *depth*, not *length*. AFAIK GitLab can't create message threads like:
>
>   message
>   |- reply
>   |  |- reply
>   |  |  '- reply
>   |  '- reply
>   '- reply
>  '- reply
>
>>> Using such a client with commands for moving between
>>> messages in a a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite
>>> usably in my opinion.
>>
>> So how do I ask my mail agent to pull more existing code for context? Or to
>> get back to the code that started a thread?
> Why would you do that in a mail client? You have your personal copy of the
> repo, so you can just import the patch by piping it to `git am` and then
> use any of the wide array of git-supporting *specialized code review software*
> to look at the changes!

How do I see the review comments that way?

>
> Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client
> can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used
> to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic shell
> scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things.

So I first have to get proficient in some shell scripting gymnastics
(and also switch to a completely different terminal-based mail client)
so I can do proper reviews?

Thats incredibly gatekeeping.

>
> Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put together
> a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a 
> patch
> and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other 
> things to
> adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a 
> demo;
> I am sure you could come up with something better.
>
> [1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends

That seems to download some binary file? I have no idea what it is supposed to 
be.

>
> It's just sway, aerc, and a fuzzy picker combined. The command "changes" is 
> just:
>   changes() {
>   while p="$(git diff --name-only origin/master | pick)"; do
>   git diff -U999 origin/master "$p"
>   done
>   }
>
 Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
 attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
 don't send patches that way.
>>>
>>> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
>>> has support for external clients over SMTP.
>>
>> Simply put: no, that is simply not true.
>>
>> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good
>> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.
>>
>> You are just being unwittingly elistist here.
> I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be
> when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such
> issues.
>
> But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from
> email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember how
> I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a 
> Firefox
> fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you don't
> care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app"
> that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is excluded.
> When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to 
> download
> mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I
> wouldn't bother.
>
> So how is that any different?

How is it different to download a well maintained recent software and open a 
website,
in comparison to learn how to setup a (complex) combination of tools just to be 
able
to easily contribute?

>
> I think 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 7:44 PM CEST, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
> > > [...]
> > You will get similar selection bias anywhere else. Even if you handled
> > such a conversation on a discussion site, the technology powering such
> > site will influence what kind of people use it. While discussing this
> > here likely excludes people who don't know how to use a mailing list,
> > having such a debate on Reddit, for example, would exclude people who
> > don't use social media (anyone valuing their privacy and mental health),
> > etc. IMHO there is no way to avoid that.
> >
>
> I think the point is not where the bias is, but how to facilitate new blood
> in ffmpeg. While mailing list reviews may work well for you, there are
> hundreds of developers that won't even get close to FFmpeg because they
> cannot use git{lab,hub}, regardless of the pros or cons of email.
Yeah, that's true.

> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
> both workflows, a main git{hub,lab} interface which can send and mirror the
> discussion happening on the mailing list for those who prefer emails. Such
> a project would be another good use of SPI funds.
I can see the value in that; but I still feel like SourceHut has some valuable
features over the current setup: a unified interface, not having to sign up
anywhere to contribute or comment on issues, and a significantly friendlier
UI for the mailing list archive. I believe it should be considered even if just
as an upgrade for the "email people".
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:38 PM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> > > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> > 
> > Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.
>
> And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
> That's the whole point.
This argument can actually go in both directions since the Web and web
browsers weren't meant for performing code review either. If you remember,
the Web was originally intended for sharing *documents*, which a MR page
on GitLab definitely isn't.

IMHO, the fact that something was intended for some use case does not imply
that it's actually good for that use case. My point was that what it was
meant for does not matter, what's important is if and how well it works
for that use case.

> > and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary depth.
>
> I don't care because *GitHub* is out of the race for other reasons anyway. I 
> have never had a situation whence *Gitlab* refused to add more comments to a 
> thread.
I said *depth*, not *length*. AFAIK GitLab can't create message threads like:

  message
  |- reply
  |  |- reply 
  |  |  '- reply
  |  '- reply
  '- reply
 '- reply

> > Using such a client with commands for moving between
> > messages in a a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite
> > usably in my opinion.
>
> So how do I ask my mail agent to pull more existing code for context? Or to 
> get back to the code that started a thread?
Why would you do that in a mail client? You have your personal copy of the
repo, so you can just import the patch by piping it to `git am` and then
use any of the wide array of git-supporting *specialized code review software*
to look at the changes!

Of course, the quality of your toolings matters a lot. If your email client
can't pipe a bunch of emails to a shell command, it's not fit for being used
to review git patches. On the other hand, if you possess just some basic shell
scripting skills, you can make it do pretty cool things.

Since you felt that there is no way to see additional context, I put together
a quick demo[1] showing how easily you can review all files affected by a patch
and look at *all* the context. Of course, you could do a bunch of other things 
to
adjust the email-based workflow as desired. And don't forget this is just a 
demo;
I am sure you could come up with something better.

[1] https://paste.c-net.org/HansenWeekends

It's just sway, aerc, and a fuzzy picker combined. The command "changes" is 
just:
  changes() {
  while p="$(git diff --name-only origin/master | pick)"; do
  git diff -U999 origin/master "$p"
  done
  }

> > > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
> > > don't send patches that way.
> > 
> > How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> > has support for external clients over SMTP.
>
> Simply put: no, that is simply not true.
>
> Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good 
> reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.
>
> You are just being unwittingly elistist here.
I must admit I did not realize how bad some email/internet providers can be
when writing this, as I have a fairly average setup and never ran into such
issues.

But the problem with accessibility is not aleviated by switching away from
email, since those forges aren't universally accessible either. I remember how
I used to run Pale Moon like 2 years ago. In case you don't know, it's a Firefox
fork maintained by a small team. GitHub didn't run on it. Oh, sorry, you don't
care about GitHub. But they share the same desig -- hugely complex "web app"
that only runs on latest version of major browsers. Everyone else is excluded.
When I wanted to contribute to a project I really cared about, I had to download
mainline Firefox and do it over that. If I cared even a bit less about it, I
wouldn't bother.

So how is that any different?

I think the solution to the email issues you mentioned could be to have the
ability to upload patches through the SourceHut UI directly. Since SourceHut
is still not feature-finished AFAIK, it could actually be added if there was
enough interest.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM Vittorio Giovara 
wrote:

> I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
> both workflows
>

I agree with this.

Ronald
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:

> On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:20 PM CEST, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > > [...]
> > I feel it's a huge selection bias to have arguments about Gitlab vs
> Mailing
> > list handled on a mailing list.
> >
> > [...]
> You will get similar selection bias anywhere else. Even if you handled
> such a conversation on a discussion site, the technology powering such
> site will influence what kind of people use it. While discussing this
> here likely excludes people who don't know how to use a mailing list,
> having such a debate on Reddit, for example, would exclude people who
> don't use social media (anyone valuing their privacy and mental health),
> etc. IMHO there is no way to avoid that.
>

I think the point is not where the bias is, but how to facilitate new blood
in ffmpeg. While mailing list reviews may work well for you, there are
hundreds of developers that won't even get close to FFmpeg because they
cannot use git{lab,hub}, regardless of the pros or cons of email.

I believe the path forward would be designing a system that can accommodate
both workflows, a main git{hub,lab} interface which can send and mirror the
discussion happening on the mailing list for those who prefer emails. Such
a project would be another good use of SPI funds.
-- 
Vittorio
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel]

> On May 2, 2024, at 9:35 AM, Zhao Zhili  wrote:
> 
> I know a developer which have contributed to FFmpeg and stop doing so after
> losing his git-send-email environment.

I'm not surprised, getting git-send-email to work can be fairly daunting.

First you have to know enough about secure SMTP to know the difference 
between ports 465 and 587 and properly configuring SMTP encryption in 
git config (quick, which one is "tls" and which one is "ssl").

Then you may need to know enough about Perl to install some modules from 
CPAN, for example I always need to install Net::SMTP::SSL on a new machine.

Lastly you need to figure out how to integrate git with keychain on your 
particular platform to avoid having your email password in a plaintext file.

- Cosmin
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Zhao Zhili]

> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel  On Behalf Of Ondřej Fiala
> Sent: 2024年5月2日 22:25
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches 
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> 
> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a 
> > écrit :
> > >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> > >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> > >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> > >>
> > >> - Hendrik
> > >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> > >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> > >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
> >
> > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how you
> > slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today. Many email clients
> have support for threading, and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary
> depth. Using such a client with commands for moving between messages in a
> a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite usably in my 
> opinion.
> 
> > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people 
> > don't
> > send patches that way.
> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can* actually
> dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
> mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
> and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

I have tested a few email providers trying to find one which works with git
send-email. Some email providers blocked my emails because they don't know
git send-email and treat patches in email as spam.

And there are email client issues. Michael's email is blank in a very popular 
email
client. I reported the bug to the developer of that email client, they don't 
understand
the use case and have no interest to fix it.

I know a developer which have contributed to FFmpeg and stop doing so after
losing his git-send-email environment.

> 
> > >But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
> > >are you missing?
> >
> > Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and expand
> > context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
> I can sort of understand everything except the last one. What is "a proper
> listing of open MR" supposed to mean...? (I know what a merge request is,
> of course, but I don't get how the way GitLab lists them is supposedly
> superior to SourceHut's list of patches.)
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le torstaina 2. toukokuuta 2024, 17.25.06 EEST Ondřej Fiala a écrit :
> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a 
écrit :
> > >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> > >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> > >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> > >> 
> > >> - Hendrik
> > >
> > >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> > >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> > >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
> > 
> > I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how
> > you slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
> 
> Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today.

And Gitlab and Github are meant for what they are used.
That's the whole point.

Maybe (probably) email is better than any other tool that was not meant for 
code review, but not than a dedicated tool. But to claim that email is better 
for code review that dedicated tools is very highly disingenuous. People 
wouldn't have spent so much effort developping those tools, and they would not 
be so popular.

> Many email clients have support for threading,

No, they don't. Email threading is *not* the same as code review threading. 
And then email clients also can't track open/closed states.

> and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary depth.

I don't care because *GitHub* is out of the race for other reasons anyway. I 
have never had a situation whence *Gitlab* refused to add more comments to a 
thread.

> Using such a client with commands for moving between
> messages in a a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite
> usably in my opinion.

So how do I ask my mail agent to pull more existing code for context? Or to 
get back to the code that started a thread?

> > Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> > attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people
> > don't send patches that way.
> 
> How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
> has support for external clients over SMTP.

Simply put: no, that is simply not true.

Not everybody can pick a decent email provider with outbound SMTP and a good 
reputation. Also not everybody gets to pick their mail agent or their ISP.

You are just being unwittingly elistist here.

> And I believe you *can* actually
> dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
> mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails and
> auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

Yes but then those people can't contribute at all.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Thu May 2, 2024 at 4:20 PM CEST, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > [...]
> I feel it's a huge selection bias to have arguments about Gitlab vs Mailing
> list handled on a mailing list.
>
> [...]
You will get similar selection bias anywhere else. Even if you handled
such a conversation on a discussion site, the technology powering such
site will influence what kind of people use it. While discussing this
here likely excludes people who don't know how to use a mailing list,
having such a debate on Reddit, for example, would exclude people who
don't use social media (anyone valuing their privacy and mental health),
etc. IMHO there is no way to avoid that.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:27 AM CEST, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a 
> écrit :
> >On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> >> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> >> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> >> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
> >>
> >> - Hendrik
> >I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
> >Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
> >do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.
>
> I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how you
> slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.
Email was not meant for a lot of what it's used for today. Many email clients
have support for threading, and unlike GitHub allow threads of arbitrary
depth. Using such a client with commands for moving between messages in a
a thread etc. makes threaded code review over email quite usably in my opinion.

> Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as
> attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people don't
> send patches that way.
How can anyone use git, but not git send-email? Any decent email provider
has support for external clients over SMTP. And I believe you *can* actually
dictate that people don't attach patches -- if you have control over the
mailing list software, you can set up a filter that rejects such emails
and auto-replies with instructions on how to send them properly.

> >But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
> >are you missing?
>
> Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and expand
> context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
I can sort of understand everything except the last one. What is "a proper
listing of open MR" supposed to mean...? (I know what a merge request is,
of course, but I don't get how the way GitLab lists them is supposedly
superior to SourceHut's list of patches.)
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Kieran Kunhya]

Sent from my mobile device

On Thu, 2 May 2024, 15:54 Ondřej Fiala,  wrote:

> On Wed May 1, 2024 at 1:01 AM CEST, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:05:05PM +0200, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > IMHO, GitHub have improved that user experience significantly in recent
> years.
> > Yes you're still making a fork and pushing it, but the experience is
> more like
> > click the edit button -> make changes (in an admittedly clunky web
> editor) ->
> > save and push.  The rest is just kinda presented as implementation
> details.
> >
> > That's a bit of a nitpick, but the wider point is interesting -
> > GitHub etc. are fast-moving targets, so today's friction points become
> > tomorrow's selling points, then the next day's lock-in opportunities.
> > That makes it hard to compare to a mailing list, which is unlikely to be
> > better or worse ten years from now.
> That's an interesting point, and I guess it also shows how different
> perspectives result in very different conclusions. To me, GitHub being
> fast-moving is a negative for the same reason the whole Web tech stack
> being fast-moving is.
>

I feel it's a huge selection bias to have arguments about Gitlab vs Mailing
list handled on a mailing list.

[insert meme of plane with holes in it]

Kieran

>
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Wed May 1, 2024 at 1:01 AM CEST, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:05:05PM +0200, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> > [...]
>
> IMHO, GitHub have improved that user experience significantly in recent years.
> Yes you're still making a fork and pushing it, but the experience is more like
> click the edit button -> make changes (in an admittedly clunky web editor) ->
> save and push.  The rest is just kinda presented as implementation details.
>
> That's a bit of a nitpick, but the wider point is interesting -
> GitHub etc. are fast-moving targets, so today's friction points become
> tomorrow's selling points, then the next day's lock-in opportunities.
> That makes it hard to compare to a mailing list, which is unlikely to be
> better or worse ten years from now.
That's an interesting point, and I guess it also shows how different
perspectives result in very different conclusions. To me, GitHub being
fast-moving is a negative for the same reason the whole Web tech stack
being fast-moving is.

It means that unless I use the latest Chrome or Firefox or something built on
their engines, I am going to be locked out from participating. Worse, because
contemporary JS technologies are getting increasingly power-hungry, one needs a
relatively recent desktop to be able to use many of these things, which, apart
from leading to needless electronic waste, could be a serious barrier for people
in poorer parts of the world.

Of course, big tech companies intentionally using inefficient software to drive
up sales of new hardware sounds completely like a conspiracy theory... until you
look at the news and read about Microsoft's Windows 11 lacking support for older
hardware without any apparent reason, as people were able to modify the OS to
run on such hardware and it worked just fine. I don't need to remind anyone that
GitHub is owned by Microsoft.

I believe stability and simplicity are virtues, not drawbacks.

> > > [...]
> > I actually agree that the mailing list can be somewhat annoying as well,
> > which is why I like that on SourceHut you can send a patch to their mailing
> > lists without being subscribed and it's standard practice that people Cc you
> > on the replies. I really feel like this should be standard practice;
> > subscribing to the mailing list makes no sense if you only want to send in a
> > single patch, and it increases the effort required by flooding you with 
> > emails
> > which aren't relevant to you, as you say.
> >
> > [...]
>
> I haven't properly tried this, and it's an ugly hack if it works at all, but 
> it
> might be possible to support logged-out comments with a web-based trigger.
>
> Triggers are designed to let you e.g. ping a URL on github.com when some
> third-party dependency is updated, and have code on their servers 
> automatically
> pull in that dependency and rebuild your package without manual intervention.
> But you could equally ping "my-web-hook?name=...=..." then have your
> bot turn that into a comment.
I must admit that this is an interesting idea, but unless people can also
contribute that way it's not going to be very useful. And I am afraid that
such "bridging" of email to GitHub would degrade the user experience on both
sides, as I have seen happen in similar cases elsewhere, e.g. with Matrix being
bridged to IRC.

I mean -- if it's decided to switch to GitHub because its code review is
supposedly better, then surely the last thing those people would want is others
sending in their reviews as emails, completely avoiding GitHub's code review
facilities.

> This isn't unique to GitHub - a quick look suggests GitLab can do the same,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if SourceHut can too.  And a self-hosted solution
> could presumably use this as the basis for a general anonymous comment thing.
SourceHut needs no such hacks -- it already accepts comments sent in through
email to its issue tracker, and code review is done directly on mailing lists.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Hi,

Le 30 avril 2024 22:15:10 GMT+03:00, "Ondřej Fiala"  a écrit 
:
>On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
>> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
>> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
>>
>> - Hendrik
>I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
>Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
>do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.

I don't use Gmail, and using email for review still sucks. No matter how you 
slice it, email was not meant for threaded code reviews.

Also while I can use git-send-email, not everyone can. And patches as 
attachments are simply awful. Unfortunately I can't dictate that people don't 
send patches that way.

>But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
>are you missing?

Proper threaded reviews with state tracking, ability to collapse and expand 
context and files, and proper listing of open MR (*not* like patchwork).
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:05:05PM +0200, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 9:04 PM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> > Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
> > contribute to ffmpeg?
> >
> > So on the flip side, I (actually) find it just as annoying to have to
> > create such accounts at every project rather than my having one account at
> > GitHub (or a relatively few for other hosting sites) and can then
> > contribute to literally thousands of projects without any friction.
> I would disagree on the "friction" part. To contribute, you have to "fork"
> the project, add your "fork" as a new git remote, push to it, and only then
> can you create a pull request. In comparison, contributing using email is
> literally just two simple git commands without ever having to leave the
> terminal.

IMHO, GitHub have improved that user experience significantly in recent years.
Yes you're still making a fork and pushing it, but the experience is more like
click the edit button -> make changes (in an admittedly clunky web editor) ->
save and push.  The rest is just kinda presented as implementation details.

That's a bit of a nitpick, but the wider point is interesting -
GitHub etc. are fast-moving targets, so today's friction points become
tomorrow's selling points, then the next day's lock-in opportunities.
That makes it hard to compare to a mailing list, which is unlikely to be
better or worse ten years from now.

> > Moreover now being subscribed to that list I get 50 emails a day that I
> > have to wait through. Just so long as I want to contribute. Sure I can
> > create rules but it is pretty obnoxious.
> >
> > As a casual contributor, I much prefer getting notifications about my
> > occasion contributions.  But one can opt to get notified of everything by
> > subscribing to the whole project.
> I actually agree that the mailing list can be somewhat annoying as well,
> which is why I like that on SourceHut you can send a patch to their mailing
> lists without being subscribed and it's standard practice that people Cc you
> on the replies. I really feel like this should be standard practice;
> subscribing to the mailing list makes no sense if you only want to send in a
> single patch, and it increases the effort required by flooding you with emails
> which aren't relevant to you, as you say.
> 
> I personally find the mailing list much less annoying than using GitHub even
> when subscription is required, but I feel like without having to subscribe
> it's the most straight-forward way really.

I haven't properly tried this, and it's an ugly hack if it works at all, but it
might be possible to support logged-out comments with a web-based trigger.

Triggers are designed to let you e.g. ping a URL on github.com when some
third-party dependency is updated, and have code on their servers automatically
pull in that dependency and rebuild your package without manual intervention.
But you could equally ping "my-web-hook?name=...=..." then have your
bot turn that into a comment.

This isn't unique to GitHub - a quick look suggests GitLab can do the same,
and I wouldn't be surprised if SourceHut can too.  And a self-hosted solution
could presumably use this as the basis for a general anonymous comment thing.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
> entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
> SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.
>
> - Hendrik
I guess that depends on how (and with what) you use it. Using it with
Gmail UI for example is obviously not a great idea. No idea whether you
do, but if you do, you should be upset at Gmail, not email.

But you did not answer my question: which specific code review features
are you missing? I am just really curious, as I have less experience with
open-source development than you.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 8:49 PM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
>
> On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 2:11 AM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
> > >
> > > I would really suggest you look at SourceHut.
> >
> > While SourceHut might be a slight improvement over the current
> > situation (and only slight), it being fundamentally still based on
> > email makes it inherit a lot of limitations and problems, and the
> > functionality of the web interface is severely lacking, as key
> > functions like commenting on patches are relegated back to your email
> > client.
> I think that's sort of the point, that you don't need a modern web
> browser to do code review. The web interface is meant to supplement
> email in the process, not replace it.

I will take the replacement instead, thanks. Email is archaic. The
entire point is to get away from email, not dress it up.
SourceHut usage would likely make me even less interested then today.

- Hendrik
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 9:04 PM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
> contribute to ffmpeg?
>
> So on the flip side, I (actually) find it just as annoying to have to
> create such accounts at every project rather than my having one account at
> GitHub (or a relatively few for other hosting sites) and can then
> contribute to literally thousands of projects without any friction.
I would disagree on the "friction" part. To contribute, you have to "fork"
the project, add your "fork" as a new git remote, push to it, and only then
can you create a pull request. In comparison, contributing using email is
literally just two simple git commands without ever having to leave the
terminal.

> Moreover now being subscribed to that list I get 50 emails a day that I
> have to wait through. Just so long as I want to contribute. Sure I can
> create rules but it is pretty obnoxious.
>
> As a casual contributor, I much prefer getting notifications about my
> occasion contributions.  But one can opt to get notified of everything by
> subscribing to the whole project.
I actually agree that the mailing list can be somewhat annoying as well,
which is why I like that on SourceHut you can send a patch to their mailing
lists without being subscribed and it's standard practice that people Cc you
on the replies. I really feel like this should be standard practice;
subscribing to the mailing list makes no sense if you only want to send in a
single patch, and it increases the effort required by flooding you with emails
which aren't relevant to you, as you say.

I personally find the mailing list much less annoying than using GitHub even
when subscription is required, but I feel like without having to subscribe
it's the most straight-forward way really.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Tue Apr 30, 2024 at 2:11 AM CEST, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
> >
> > I would really suggest you look at SourceHut.
>
> While SourceHut might be a slight improvement over the current
> situation (and only slight), it being fundamentally still based on
> email makes it inherit a lot of limitations and problems, and the
> functionality of the web interface is severely lacking, as key
> functions like commenting on patches are relegated back to your email
> client.
I think that's sort of the point, that you don't need a modern web
browser to do code review. The web interface is meant to supplement
email in the process, not replace it.

> Patch display functionality isn't any better then a mail client with a
> bit of syntax highlighting, nevermind bespoke review tools that are
> entirely absent, as it just sends you to your email client to respond.
Personally I don't see much added value in GitHub's pull request model
compared to inline comments on patches in an email thread, but I suppose
that's probably not what you're comparing SourceHut against here. Perhaps
you could list the "bespoke review tools" whose features you're missing
explicitly?

> At least thats what I see when checking the SourceHut instance of
> SourceHut itself.
>
> As far as solutions go, this isn't one that I would imagine, I'm
> afraid. It's essentially a mailing list with patchwork. We have that
> now.
I read someone complain that it's difficult to see which patches were
accepted with patchwork. I didn't verify whether that's true, but it's
certainly not an issue when using SourceHut.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 08:01:14PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> lör 2024-04-27 klockan 12:53 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > > > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > * ffchat
> > > > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > > > > almost
> > > > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > > > > 
> > > > > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please
> > > > > don't. We
> > > > 
> > > > If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then
> > > > theres no
> > > > need to invent a new one
> > > > 
> > > > I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by
> > > > default
> > > > and always"
> > > > (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> > > > security/privacy)
> > > 
> > > "Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.
> > 
> > yes, more security and privacy is better
> 
> Not always. More security is typically more work.

Yes, thats of course true
I meant it more in a sense of providing a sane level of security
and then always providing the maximum security as long as it did not
add "cost" to the user.
As well as maybe automating things where that can be done without it by itself
causing more issues than it fixes.


> For example TOFU
> (trust on first use) is easy but you should really compare
> fingerprints. The latter is more work however.

> 
> I've worked with helping people who have a need or even a legal
> obligation to secure their chats, such as journalists. This is non-
> trivial.

I did not know. So i first would like to thank you for doing that
sort of stuff. The world today is increasingly in need of this.


> Have you done the necessary research on this?

probably not. Because i did not had the need for truly secure communication.
also if i had the need it would then be a specific case while the goal here
is more to have something generically usefull. Like gpg is for email.



> 
> > > If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then
> > > XMPP+OMEMO
> > > is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
> > > time I checked.
> > > 
> > > If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
> > > peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its
> > > internet
> > > traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over
> > > WiFi
> > > Direct and Bluetooth.
> > > 
> > > There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.
> > > 
> > > Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're
> > > not
> > > likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing
> > > beats
> > > not using computers at all.
> > 
> > sure, i agree, we should use existing protocols whenever one exists
> > for a purpose already ...
> > 
> > libavformat supports, RTP, RTSP, MMS, HLS, RTMP and probably more
> > we support audio, video, data and text packets/streams
> > 
> > So adding support for some more secure/private protocols is
> > within the scope of libavformat.
> 
> I'm curious what protocols you have in mind, assuming we're still
> talking multimedia. Taking XMPP as an example, multimedia attachments
> are handled via HTTP upload, meaning playback only depends on HTTP(S)
> support. I expect most XMPP clients already leverage libav* for
> playback

Depending on the adversary. https can be a bad choice, as it can be
attacked by anyone in control of any single certificate authority so
https provides no security against nation-states / secret services or
determined large corporations.
So i would somwhat favor avoiding the dependance on such certificate authorities
also https seems it would make a central server mandatory which then
is a central point an adversary could use to monitor that being sub optimal


> 
> > And it would allow all multimedia players to use these more secure
> > means of communicating.
> 
> Why do media players need chat functionality? Should we implement email
> while we're at it?

Well, from the few conferences i did listen to (that being fflabs and IETF 
stuff)
its not uncommon someone has some text to pass along, like a URL or someones
microphone doesnt work. So id say the ability to exchange some text is
important.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Dictatorship: All citizens are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the politicians to enforce control.
Democracy: All politicians are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the citizens to enforce control.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:32:27PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefa...@gmail.com:
> 
> > On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern 
> >> streaming
> >> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
> >>
> >
> > If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
> > the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
> > be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
> > association with the old incompatible tool .
> >
> 
> That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
> and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
> multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
> ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
> It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
> but that was largely the case that ffserver had.
> 
> What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
> it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
> the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
> AVTransport can largely fill that niche.

hmm
how would we (assert(people agreeing)) go from what you describe
to a (very easy to use) ffserver "2.0" in something on the ffmpeg.org download 
page
?

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped 
leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded 
you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:
>
> I would really suggest you look at SourceHut.

While SourceHut might be a slight improvement over the current
situation (and only slight), it being fundamentally still based on
email makes it inherit a lot of limitations and problems, and the
functionality of the web interface is severely lacking, as key
functions like commenting on patches are relegated back to your email
client.
Patch display functionality isn't any better then a mail client with a
bit of syntax highlighting, nevermind bespoke review tools that are
entirely absent, as it just sends you to your email client to respond.

At least thats what I see when checking the SourceHut instance of
SourceHut itself.

As far as solutions go, this isn't one that I would imagine, I'm
afraid. It's essentially a mailing list with patchwork. We have that
now.

- Hendrik
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le maanantaina 29. huhtikuuta 2024, 22.04.00 EEST Davy Durham a écrit :
> Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
> contribute to ffmpeg?

Yes, but subscribing to a mailing list is much easier than creating a Gitlab 
account (especially if 2FA is needed), and cloning FFmpeg there.

Still that is a minor inconvenience for first time contributors, which is way 
way outweighed by the extra convenience for the code review and merge process.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/



___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Davy Durham]

Presently do you not have to create an account on the devel mailing list to
contribute to ffmpeg?

So on the flip side, I (actually) find it just as annoying to have to
create such accounts at every project rather than my having one account at
GitHub (or a relatively few for other hosting sites) and can then
contribute to literally thousands of projects without any friction.

Moreover now being subscribed to that list I get 50 emails a day that I
have to wait through. Just so long as I want to contribute. Sure I can
create rules but it is pretty obnoxious.

As a casual contributor, I much prefer getting notifications about my
occasion contributions.  But one can opt to get notified of everything by
subscribing to the whole project.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 11:44 AM Ondřej Fiala  wrote:

> On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 8:03 AM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> > On 4/19/24 09:50, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > +1 from me too.  Please oh, please oh, /please/ modernize the patch
> > management.  I don't know what the opposition/inability to use github is
> > all about.  But gitlab should be a great improvement on the ML/patchwork
> > situation.
> I can give you my POV as someone who dislikes GitHub-like workflows. I
> have no idea if anyone's gonna read it, but anyway...
>
> To contribute with GitHub/GitLab, I have to create an account. This
> might sound trivial, but I find it really annoying to have to maintain
> an account on a bunch of code hosting platform just to contribute a single
> patch to a bunch of software projects. I guarantee you I wouldn't
> contribute
> to ffmpeg if I had to create an account to do so (though my patch wasn't
> incorporated anyway despite it being like 20 lines, so I guess it wouldn't
> change much).
>
> Another issue which is very important to me is the fact that neither GitHub
> nor GitLab work reliably with various privacy add-ons and browser settings.
> Gitea is the only GitHub-like software that is usable with these, so if you
> really have to use a GitHub-like workflow, please consider that over GitLab
> if you care at all about usability.GitLab is the worst in this respect
> because not a single thing about it works without JavaScript (I mean,
> I can't even read a project's README without it).
>
> I would really suggest you look at SourceHut. It keeps mailing list with
> patches workflow, but all the patches are tracked including whether they
> were incorporated, rejected, someone requested changes, etc. Other than
> that it has many features you find in other code hosting platforms,
> including an issue tracker, CI/CD, an equivalent for GitHub's "wiki"
> and "pages" features, etc. It's more accessible than all the platforms
> I've mentioned above, in particular it seems to work well even in limited
> browsers without JavaScript and the UI is faster (much faster than GitLab).
>
> It also does not require you to have an account to contribute. In fact,
> I don't have an account there either and want to make it clear that I am
> not connected to SourceHut in any way. I just really enjoy the experience
> of contributing like:
>
> $ git format-patch master
> $ git send-email ~username/project-de...@lists.sr.ht
>
> No need to sign up to a mailing list or a code hosting platform, no need
> to create a "fork" and a pull request, ...
>
> >
> > gitlab has a hosted edition for opensource projects
> > .   (Or is the
> > opposition to github about trusting someone else to host it in general?)
> >
> > Automated CI/CD pipelines will change your /life/ if you've never used
> > them.  I was once opposed but wouldn't want to do it any other way for
> > any significant project anymore.
> >
> > Inline comments on MRs would be a great improvement for discussions and
> > requests from maintainers, and plus it's much easier to see/drill-into
> > those discussion from the blame view.
> >
> > my two cents
> >
> > ___
> > 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".
>
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 6:37 PM CEST, Ondřej Fiala wrote:
> $ git format-patch master
> $ git send-email ~username/project-de...@lists.sr.ht
Should have checked what I'm writing. The second line should be
$ git send-email --to ~username/project-de...@lists.sr.ht *.patch

Oops.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 8:03 AM CEST, Davy Durham wrote:
> On 4/19/24 09:50, Niklas Haas wrote:
> +1 from me too.  Please oh, please oh, /please/ modernize the patch 
> management.  I don't know what the opposition/inability to use github is 
> all about.  But gitlab should be a great improvement on the ML/patchwork 
> situation.
I can give you my POV as someone who dislikes GitHub-like workflows. I
have no idea if anyone's gonna read it, but anyway...

To contribute with GitHub/GitLab, I have to create an account. This
might sound trivial, but I find it really annoying to have to maintain
an account on a bunch of code hosting platform just to contribute a single
patch to a bunch of software projects. I guarantee you I wouldn't contribute
to ffmpeg if I had to create an account to do so (though my patch wasn't
incorporated anyway despite it being like 20 lines, so I guess it wouldn't
change much).

Another issue which is very important to me is the fact that neither GitHub
nor GitLab work reliably with various privacy add-ons and browser settings.
Gitea is the only GitHub-like software that is usable with these, so if you
really have to use a GitHub-like workflow, please consider that over GitLab
if you care at all about usability.GitLab is the worst in this respect
because not a single thing about it works without JavaScript (I mean,
I can't even read a project's README without it).

I would really suggest you look at SourceHut. It keeps mailing list with
patches workflow, but all the patches are tracked including whether they
were incorporated, rejected, someone requested changes, etc. Other than
that it has many features you find in other code hosting platforms,
including an issue tracker, CI/CD, an equivalent for GitHub's "wiki"
and "pages" features, etc. It's more accessible than all the platforms
I've mentioned above, in particular it seems to work well even in limited
browsers without JavaScript and the UI is faster (much faster than GitLab).

It also does not require you to have an account to contribute. In fact,
I don't have an account there either and want to make it clear that I am
not connected to SourceHut in any way. I just really enjoy the experience
of contributing like:

$ git format-patch master
$ git send-email ~username/project-de...@lists.sr.ht

No need to sign up to a mailing list or a code hosting platform, no need
to create a "fork" and a pull request, ...

>
> gitlab has a hosted edition for opensource projects 
> .   (Or is the 
> opposition to github about trusting someone else to host it in general?)
>
> Automated CI/CD pipelines will change your /life/ if you've never used 
> them.  I was once opposed but wouldn't want to do it any other way for 
> any significant project anymore.
>
> Inline comments on MRs would be a great improvement for discussions and 
> requests from maintainers, and plus it's much easier to see/drill-into 
> those discussion from the blame view.
>
> my two cents
>
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Davy Durham]

On 4/19/24 09:50, Niklas Haas wrote:

So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.

This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
ML+pingspam model.

We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
N days gets *automatically* merged.

I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
this. (Maybe SPI?)


+1 from me too.  Please oh, please oh, /please/ modernize the patch 
management.  I don't know what the opposition/inability to use github is 
all about.  But gitlab should be a great improvement on the ML/patchwork 
situation.


gitlab has a hosted edition for opensource projects 
.   (Or is the 
opposition to github about trusting someone else to host it in general?)


Automated CI/CD pipelines will change your /life/ if you've never used 
them.  I was once opposed but wouldn't want to do it any other way for 
any significant project anymore.


Inline comments on MRs would be a great improvement for discussions and 
requests from maintainers, and plus it's much easier to see/drill-into 
those discussion from the blame view.


my two cents

___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Sat Apr 27, 2024 at 12:24 PM CEST, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable by
> voice communication.
> Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
> Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
> Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
> ...
>
> A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
> maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
> its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
> its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
> its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i have 
> a deja vue feeling here

And arguably both of them are terrible at these additional tasks.
I will take my terminal-based email client over a web browser any day,
thank you. To quote Doug McIlroy:
> Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

lör 2024-04-27 klockan 12:53 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > > 
> > > > > * ffchat
> > > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > > > almost
> > > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > > > 
> > > > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please
> > > > don't. We
> > > 
> > > If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then
> > > theres no
> > > need to invent a new one
> > > 
> > > I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by
> > > default
> > > and always"
> > > (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> > > security/privacy)
> > 
> > "Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.
> 
> yes, more security and privacy is better

Not always. More security is typically more work. For example TOFU
(trust on first use) is easy but you should really compare
fingerprints. The latter is more work however.

I've worked with helping people who have a need or even a legal
obligation to secure their chats, such as journalists. This is non-
trivial. Have you done the necessary research on this?

> > If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then
> > XMPP+OMEMO
> > is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
> > time I checked.
> > 
> > If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
> > peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its
> > internet
> > traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over
> > WiFi
> > Direct and Bluetooth.
> > 
> > There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.
> > 
> > Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're
> > not
> > likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing
> > beats
> > not using computers at all.
> 
> sure, i agree, we should use existing protocols whenever one exists
> for a purpose already ...
> 
> libavformat supports, RTP, RTSP, MMS, HLS, RTMP and probably more
> we support audio, video, data and text packets/streams
> 
> So adding support for some more secure/private protocols is
> within the scope of libavformat.

I'm curious what protocols you have in mind, assuming we're still
talking multimedia. Taking XMPP as an example, multimedia attachments
are handled via HTTP upload, meaning playback only depends on HTTP(S)
support. I expect most XMPP clients already leverage libav* for
playback

> And it would allow all multimedia players to use these more secure
> means of communicating.

Why do media players need chat functionality? Should we implement email
while we're at it?

> As well as writing dedicated secure chat applications on
> top of libavformat.

I can imagine many things more pleasant than writing a chat system on
top of lavf, such as eating sand. Or even worse, having to take such
systems into consideration when attempting to refactor lavf..

> This would bring in more users and developers

Outreach would likely be more effective, and far less work

/Tomas
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:24 AM Michael Niedermayer 
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:15:27AM -0700, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But
> Windows
> > > is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> > > >
> > > > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the
> same
> > > legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> > > >
> > > > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical
> new
> > > innovation.
> > >
> > > Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> > > repository, FFmpeg does
> > >
> > > Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its
> not
> > > a seperate
> > > product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> > > microsoft
> > >
> > > microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the
> current
> > > latest OS.
> > > There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> > > >
> > > > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
> > >
> > > of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a
> audio
> > > search
> > > news, travel, shoping.
> > > These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont
> know, i
> > > suspect
> > > google search is very good at finding google products.
> > > Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
> > >
> > > But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> > > Google Maps as first entry.
> > >
> > > or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
> > >
> > >
> > > And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> > > many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> > > there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> > > that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> > > Thats in stark contrast to
> > > "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > > innovation"
> > > when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> > > iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
> > >
> > > I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or
> FFmpeg
> > > will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that
> doesnt
> > > have an opposition to innovation.
> > >
> > > IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> > > people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> > > 2nd step would be a vote.
> >
> >
> > You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a
>
> The examples i showed cover a wide range of software (An OS, A office
> suite,
> A web browser, an AI assitent, a search engine, web apps, and more)
> and hardware like a phone, services like cloud
>
> For all of them its true that radical innovation was essential for success.
>
> our multimedia framework is not a special case relative to above
>
>
> > network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
> > because it's impossible but
>
> These sound like really bad ideas unrealated to innovation.
>
>
> > because it's the wrong tool for the job -
>
> IMHO, this is missing the point a bit
>
> A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable
> by
> voice communication.
> Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
> Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
> Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
> ...
>
> A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
> maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
> its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
> its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
> its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i
> have a deja vue feeling here
>
> (and you can continue this list with software, hardware and services from
> other
>  successfull companies, there is radical innovation everywhere)
>
> our repository is also not just the ffmpeg tool, there are libraries and
> theres
> ffmpeg, ffprobe, ffplay
>
> FFmpeg is a whole multimedia framework and there are many things we could
> innovate
> on.
>
> Also, i agree its important to listen to what the users want. But often
> what they
> ask for and what actually would help them most, can be different.
>

This is many words to say that you're missing the point. Let me try in
social media format

Youcan'tcompareffmpegtothemanyprojectsyoumentioned.

And please address the main innovation points that we need, reiterated here
- switching to a more user friendly patch system
- have stronger meaningful actions from the CC
- secure funding for larger projects

These are all hard to do, even more so when the leadership stalls any
action 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > > 
> > > > * ffchat
> > > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > > almost
> > > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > > 
> > > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We
> > 
> > If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then theres no
> > need to invent a new one
> > 
> > I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by default
> > and always"
> > (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> > security/privacy)
> 
> "Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.

yes, more security and privacy is better


> 
> If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then XMPP+OMEMO
> is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
> time I checked.
> 
> If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
> peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its internet
> traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over WiFi
> Direct and Bluetooth.
> 
> There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.
> 
> Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're not
> likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing beats
> not using computers at all.

sure, i agree, we should use existing protocols whenever one exists
for a purpose already ...

libavformat supports, RTP, RTSP, MMS, HLS, RTMP and probably more
we support audio, video, data and text packets/streams

So adding support for some more secure/private protocols is
within the scope of libavformat.

And it would allow all multimedia players to use these more secure
means of communicating. As well as writing dedicated secure chat applications on
top of libavformat.
This would bring in more users and developers

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:15:27AM -0700, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer 
> wrote:
> 
> > > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows
> > is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same
> > legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> > >
> > > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > innovation.
> >
> > Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> > repository, FFmpeg does
> >
> > Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its not
> > a seperate
> > product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> > microsoft
> >
> > microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the current
> > latest OS.
> > There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> > >
> > > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
> >
> > of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a audio
> > search
> > news, travel, shoping.
> > These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont know, i
> > suspect
> > google search is very good at finding google products.
> > Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
> >
> > But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> > Google Maps as first entry.
> >
> > or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
> >
> >
> > And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> > many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> > there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> > that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> > Thats in stark contrast to
> > "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> > innovation"
> > when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> > iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
> >
> > I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or FFmpeg
> > will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that doesnt
> > have an opposition to innovation.
> >
> > IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> > people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> > 2nd step would be a vote.
> 
> 
> You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a

The examples i showed cover a wide range of software (An OS, A office suite,
A web browser, an AI assitent, a search engine, web apps, and more)
and hardware like a phone, services like cloud

For all of them its true that radical innovation was essential for success.

our multimedia framework is not a special case relative to above


> network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
> because it's impossible but

These sound like really bad ideas unrealated to innovation.


> because it's the wrong tool for the job -

IMHO, this is missing the point a bit

A phone originally was a tool to call and talk to someone, to be reachable by
voice communication.
Its not a tool to write letters, until it was
Its not a tool to browse the internet until it was
Its not an assitent you could ask something until it was
...

A internet browser originally was a tool to display static text and images
maybe some ftp and gopher sprinkled into it.
its not a tool to do video chat with , until it was
its not a tool to write mails in, until it was
its not a tool to submit your patches to git, until it was, ohh wait, i have a 
deja vue feeling here

(and you can continue this list with software, hardware and services from other
 successfull companies, there is radical innovation everywhere)

our repository is also not just the ffmpeg tool, there are libraries and theres
ffmpeg, ffprobe, ffplay

FFmpeg is a whole multimedia framework and there are many things we could 
innovate
on.

Also, i agree its important to listen to what the users want. But often what 
they
ask for and what actually would help them most, can be different.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in physics you will never
get a job again.
If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in medicin you will get
a job for life at the pharma industry.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:00 PM Michael Niedermayer 
wrote:

> > Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows
> is still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> >
> > Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same
> legal entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> >
> > But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> innovation.
>
> Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main
> repository, FFmpeg does
>
> Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its not
> a seperate
> product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from
> microsoft
>
> microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the current
> latest OS.
> There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.
>
>
> >
> > >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> >
> > Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
>
> of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a audio
> search
> news, travel, shoping.
> These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont know, i
> suspect
> google search is very good at finding google products.
> Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"
>
> But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
> Google Maps as first entry.
>
> or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/
>
>
> And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
> many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
> there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
> that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
> Thats in stark contrast to
> "FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new
> innovation"
> when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
> iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.
>
> I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or FFmpeg
> will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that doesnt
> have an opposition to innovation.
>
> IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
> people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
> 2nd step would be a vote.


You are kinda comparing apples and oranges, a platform like an OS or a
service like google Maps are different products than the software that runs
them like FFmpeg. While for sure there can be innovation and radical new
design ideas in our project, the space for innovation is limited by the
intrinsic nature of the software, which is basically "multimedia
in/multimedia out". In other words you cannot make something like a social
network or a crypto exchange or a browser based on ffmpeg.exe, and not
because it's impossible but because it's the wrong tool for the job -
likewise you can't make internet explorer a good multimedia low level
framework - there are other places to innovate with more freedom and fewer
requirements.

Most of the innovations I see the community ask for our project are mostly
non-technical, aka switching to a more user friendly patch system, have
stronger meaningful actions from the CC, and secure funding for larger
projects. These are all hard to do, even more so when the leadership stalls
any action out of fear of losing contributors. I hope we can find a good
compromise in the upcoming months.
-- 
Vittorio
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

tor 2024-04-25 klockan 02:07 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > 
> > > * ffchat
> > >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have
> > > almost
> > >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > 
> > You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We
> 
> If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then theres no
> need to invent a new one
> 
> I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by default
> and always"
> (there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up
> security/privacy)

"Security" and "privacy" are relative terms.

If you want end-to-end encryption in a federated system then XMPP+OMEMO
is the way to go. Or Matrix I guess, but it isn't standardized last
time I checked.

If you want metadata resistance then Briar is the way to go. It's a
peer-to-peer store-and-forward network that tunnels all its internet
traffic through Tor, and also supports synchronizing messages over WiFi
Direct and Bluetooth.

There's also GNUnet and its associated protocols like psyc.

Short of using some complicated thing involving data diodes you're not
likely to do better than what's already out there. And nothing beats
not using computers at all.

/Tomas
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 01:05:13AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 08:00:28PM +0200, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 19:35 Zhao Zhili  wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: ffmpeg-devel  On Behalf Of
> > > Niklas Haas
> > > > Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches 
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> > > mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > > >
> > > > A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> > > > just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> > > > mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
> > >
> > > VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went t far
> > > ),
> > > I don't think plugin is that dangerous.
> > >
> > > Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.
> > >
> > > Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for
> > > our
> > > development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
> > > upstream.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > > > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > > >
> > > > So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> > > > somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> > > >
> > > > This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> > > > community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> > > > several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> > > > ML+pingspam model.
> > >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
> > > I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.
> > >
> > > Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter
> > > out
> > > patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame
> > > it
> > > doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.
> > >
> > 
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> 
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> 
> I think we first need to understand what exact problem there is with the
> ML/Patchwork workflow. Write this down. See if we all agree on that
> 
> Look at what workflow* people use
> Look at what alternatives to ML/Patchwork there are
> I think others than gitlab where suggested like gittea and forgejo
> 
> And then carefully evaluate each for cost vs benefit.
> 
> If we agree on one then its probably best to setup a small test environment
> and have the whole team try to use that before we consider a switch
> 
> 
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> 
> why ?
> 
> 
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> 
> why ?
> 
> 
> workflow*
> For example, i go through patches on the ML with mutt and i have one key
> to apply a patch and another to open an editor and write a reply. Also i 
> have
> my muttrc setup so it colorizes diffs nicely so patches are easy to review
> I do test close to every patch posted on ffmpeg-devel, so being able
> to quickly apply patches matters. If i had to use a GUI based browser
> and click around with the mouse it would probably mean an end for me
> testing all patches, simply as it would be too inconvenient and slow.

It seems like this is splitting into two slightly different questions:

One is "there's a bunch of jobs that could be interesting to someone, but
nobody here wants to do.  How do we attract people who'd want to do them?".
For example, bindings in other languages are only interesting to people who use
those languages, and people here are generally happy with C.

The other is

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> 
> > * ffchat
> >     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> >     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> >     all parts for it already but some people where against it
> 
> You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We

If theres an existing protocol that serves the purpose then theres no
need to invent a new one

I think at a minimum it should have "secure and private by default and always"
(there are many solutions already when one is willing to give up 
security/privacy)

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Diederick C. Niehorster]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:50 AM Tomas Härdin  wrote:
> A large long term project that would help immensely with security is
> moving to a proper parsing framework, rather than the present shotgun
> parsing approach. But this might be such a large undertaking that it's
> better to start from scratch.
>
> A more modest proposal is to improve subtitle support. Streaming
> support could also be improved, and would be very much with the times.
> The fact that we can't pass MPEG-TS through unmolested isn't great.

Are point like these two, setting up a gitlab, etc, collected on a
wiki somewhere? Would make writing something like the big recent
funding application a bunch easier next time.

Cheers,
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Tomas Härdin]

ons 2024-04-17 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:

> * ffchat
>     (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
>     bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
>     all parts for it already but some people where against it

You mean inventing a new chat protocol? If so then please don't. We
don't need even more fragmentation in that space - heretical projects
like Matrix are bad enough. It's also widely out of scope.

> * AI / neural network filters and codecs
>     The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will
> use
>     neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these

New codecs are better developed as separate projects. The IETF has a
group dedicated to codec development. In fact they seem to be working
on ML codecs right now: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mlcodec/about/

> * [your idea here]

A large long term project that would help immensely with security is
moving to a proper parsing framework, rather than the present shotgun
parsing approach. But this might be such a large undertaking that it's
better to start from scratch.

A more modest proposal is to improve subtitle support. Streaming
support could also be improved, and would be very much with the times.
The fact that we can't pass MPEG-TS through unmolested isn't great.

/Tomas
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 03:12:59PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 21 avril 2024 23:40:08 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer 
>  a écrit :
> >On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:11:36PM +0800, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer 
> >>  a écrit :
> >> >Hi all
> >> >
> >> >The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >> >Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >> >support for new codecs and formats.
> >> 
> >> OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or 
> >> more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means 
> >> that it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected 
> >> to be good at anything else.
> >> 
> >> Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made 
> >> up its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): 
> >> H.26x, Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" 
> >> for most applications.
> >> 
> >> If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be 
> >> better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure 
> >> and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.
> >
> >I will disagree on this a bit
> >
> >If we for a moment look at the commerical world (but its not fundamentally 
> >different in OSS)
> >
> >Projects/Companies are created to fill some need, initially they
> >often need to concentarte on a narrow market because they dont have the
> >resources to do "everything" and if they try they go bankrupt.
> >Once they are established and have the resources they grow or they die
> >
> >Microsoft started with a OS in 1985, added an office suite in 1990
> >internet explorer in 1995, xbox in 2001, Microsoft Azure in 2008
> >and you can fill in more.
> >Today Microsoft is one of the largest companies in teh world.
> 
> Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows is 
> still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.
> 
> Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same legal 
> entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).
> 
> But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new 
> innovation.

Microsofts OS does not limit what can be installed to whats in MS main 
repository, FFmpeg does

Microsoft windows from a user POV includes internet explorer IIRC. Its not a 
seperate
product from just the legal entity. It was not in the first OS from microsoft

microsofts first OS MS-DOS 1.0 ? looks slightly different than the current 
latest OS.
There was radical innovation, if one likes MS or hate them.


> 
> >You can do the same with apple, google, or others.
> 
> Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.

of course you can, googles search inovated. Theres a image search a audio search
news, travel, shoping.
These did not exist in the initial google search. And while i dont know, i 
suspect
google search is very good at finding google products.
Google didnt became that big by simply "not being evil"

But lets not assume, lets try, if i search for maps i get
Google Maps as first entry.

or finance, 2nd entry is https://www.google.com/finance/


And the iphone uses apples operating system and their app store, with
many apple apps. Check the first iphone and compare it to the latest
there is huge inovation with what you can do with all the software
that comes preinstalled and also what you can install later.
Thats in stark contrast to
"FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new 
innovation"
when did you last use siri with your iphone ? siri was added in
iphone 4s IIUC. Thats a big change.

I can ultimately only repeat my oppinion. FFmpeg will innovate or FFmpeg
will stagnate and eventually be replaced by some other project that doesnt
have an opposition to innovation.

IMHO we need to find out what direction (of innovation or lack thereof)
people want. This RFC thread is kind of the first step.
2nd step would be a vote.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped 
leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded 
you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 21 avril 2024 23:40:08 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer 
 a écrit :
>On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:11:36PM +0800, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer 
>>  a écrit :
>> >Hi all
>> >
>> >The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>> >Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>> >support for new codecs and formats.
>> 
>> OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or 
>> more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that 
>> it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be 
>> good at anything else.
>> 
>> Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up 
>> its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, 
>> Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most 
>> applications.
>> 
>> If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be 
>> better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure 
>> and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.
>
>I will disagree on this a bit
>
>If we for a moment look at the commerical world (but its not fundamentally 
>different in OSS)
>
>Projects/Companies are created to fill some need, initially they
>often need to concentarte on a narrow market because they dont have the
>resources to do "everything" and if they try they go bankrupt.
>Once they are established and have the resources they grow or they die
>
>Microsoft started with a OS in 1985, added an office suite in 1990
>internet explorer in 1995, xbox in 2001, Microsoft Azure in 2008
>and you can fill in more.
>Today Microsoft is one of the largest companies in teh world.

Microsoft expanded into new fields with Xbox and Azure, yes. But Windows is 
still an OS, and Office is still a (un)productivity suite.

Accordingly, maybe you can innovate with a new project within the same legal 
entity as FFmpeg (be it SPI, FFlabs or whatever).

But FFmpeg as a software project is not a suitable venue for radical new 
innovation.

>You can do the same with apple, google, or others.

Sure but you can't do the same with iPhone or Google Search.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:02:58AM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Apr 23, 2024, 09:47 by ffmpeg-de...@pileofstuff.org:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > > Hi all
> >> > > 
> >> > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >> > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >> > > support for new codecs and formats.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Should we
> >> > > * make a list of longer term goals
> >> > > * vote on them
> >> > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> >> > > ?
> >> > > 
> >> > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >> > >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> >> > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> >> > > to a previously agreed goal.
> >> > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> >> > > 
> >> > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >> > >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> >> > > 
> >> > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> >> > > 
> >> > [...]
> >> > > * client side / in browser support
> >> > > (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
> >> > > browser)
> >> > > bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> >> > > if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> >> > 
> >> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> >> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> >> > 
> >> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> >> > languages, for example:
> >> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> >> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> >> > 
> >> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
> >>
> >> From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
> >> python, rust and wasm binding
> >>
> >> It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
> >> test coverage might also improve
> >>
> >> I think the 2 questions are.
> >>  1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
> >>  FFmpeg binding for that language ?
> >>  2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?
> >>
> >> thx
> >>
> >
> > I've thought about this a lot while trying to learn FFmpeg.
> > IMHO there are two big hurdles to good other-language bindings:
> >
> > First, FFmpeg's interface is full of C idioms that are unintuitive to
> > programmers from other languages.  For example, Stefano Sabatini is
> > patiently explaining to me in anoher thread how contexts are a central
> > concept in FFmpeg's design.  Even where I understood the code on a
> > mechanical level, I had drastically underestimated their importance
> > because I didn't have a mental model to understand them.  Binding
> > FFmpeg functionality in another language is only half the problem -
> > the interface needs to be explained in terms they can understand,
> > or rewritten in terms they already know.
> >
> > Second, the interface is full of special cases that make translation
> > to other languages burdensome.  For example, C errors are based on
> > returning a value and requiring the caller to check it explicitly;
> > whereas most other languages throw an error and allow the caller to
> > catch it or not.  A translator needs to convert every one of those,
> > but FFmpeg functions don't have a standard mechanism to signal the
> > correct behaviour for a given function.  Even the documentation isn't
> > reliably helpful, sometimes saying a variant of "returns an AVERROR",
> > sometimes "returns a negative number", and sometimes it just
> > returns an int and expects the reader to dig through the source.
> > That eats up a huge amount of programmer time, and has to be done for
> > every language that wants a binding.
> >
> > Solving those problems would make it far more practical for translators
> > to make bindings in other languages, and for new people to learn FFmpeg
> > even in C.  For example, creating an `enum AVERROR` and rewriting
> > functions to return it would make the code easier to read and drastically
> > cut translator time.
> >
> 
> We always return a negative number for error. 

This is going to be a lot of detail for a specific example, but I think it
illuminates the general point...

Signalling an error with "a negative number" vs. "an AVERROR" is all-but
synonymous in C - in both cases, you just do `if ( ret < 0 ) return ret;`.  But
the equivalent idiom in most languages involves throwing different data types.
For example, a Python programmer would likely expect the former to throw an
"Exception", but the latter to throw some library-specific "AVErrorException"
type.  A function that "returns a negative number on error" might return `-1`
in all cases, or a 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne]

Apr 23, 2024, 09:47 by ffmpeg-de...@pileofstuff.org:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > > Hi all
>> > > 
>> > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>> > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>> > > support for new codecs and formats.
>> > > 
>> > > Should we
>> > > * make a list of longer term goals
>> > > * vote on them
>> > > * and then together work towards implementing them
>> > > ?
>> > > 
>> > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
>> > >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
>> > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
>> > > to a previously agreed goal.
>> > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
>> > > 
>> > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
>> > >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
>> > > 
>> > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
>> > > 
>> > [...]
>> > > * client side / in browser support
>> > > (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
>> > > browser)
>> > > bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
>> > > if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>> > 
>> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
>> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
>> > 
>> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
>> > languages, for example:
>> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
>> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
>> > 
>> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
>>
>> From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
>> python, rust and wasm binding
>>
>> It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
>> test coverage might also improve
>>
>> I think the 2 questions are.
>>  1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
>>  FFmpeg binding for that language ?
>>  2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?
>>
>> thx
>>
>
> I've thought about this a lot while trying to learn FFmpeg.
> IMHO there are two big hurdles to good other-language bindings:
>
> First, FFmpeg's interface is full of C idioms that are unintuitive to
> programmers from other languages.  For example, Stefano Sabatini is
> patiently explaining to me in anoher thread how contexts are a central
> concept in FFmpeg's design.  Even where I understood the code on a
> mechanical level, I had drastically underestimated their importance
> because I didn't have a mental model to understand them.  Binding
> FFmpeg functionality in another language is only half the problem -
> the interface needs to be explained in terms they can understand,
> or rewritten in terms they already know.
>
> Second, the interface is full of special cases that make translation
> to other languages burdensome.  For example, C errors are based on
> returning a value and requiring the caller to check it explicitly;
> whereas most other languages throw an error and allow the caller to
> catch it or not.  A translator needs to convert every one of those,
> but FFmpeg functions don't have a standard mechanism to signal the
> correct behaviour for a given function.  Even the documentation isn't
> reliably helpful, sometimes saying a variant of "returns an AVERROR",
> sometimes "returns a negative number", and sometimes it just
> returns an int and expects the reader to dig through the source.
> That eats up a huge amount of programmer time, and has to be done for
> every language that wants a binding.
>
> Solving those problems would make it far more practical for translators
> to make bindings in other languages, and for new people to learn FFmpeg
> even in C.  For example, creating an `enum AVERROR` and rewriting
> functions to return it would make the code easier to read and drastically
> cut translator time.
>

We always return a negative number for error. 
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > > 
> > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > > support for new codecs and formats.
> > > 
> > > Should we
> > > * make a list of longer term goals
> > > * vote on them
> > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> > >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > > to a previously agreed goal.
> > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > > 
> > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> > >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > > 
> > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > > 
> > [...]
> > > * client side / in browser support
> > > (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
> > > browser)
> > > bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > > if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> > 
> > There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> > https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> > 
> > In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> > languages, for example:
> > https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> > https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> > 
> > Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.
> 
> From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
> python, rust and wasm binding
> 
> It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
> test coverage might also improve
> 
> I think the 2 questions are.
>  1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
> FFmpeg binding for that language ?
>  2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?
> 
> thx

I've thought about this a lot while trying to learn FFmpeg.
IMHO there are two big hurdles to good other-language bindings:

First, FFmpeg's interface is full of C idioms that are unintuitive to
programmers from other languages.  For example, Stefano Sabatini is
patiently explaining to me in anoher thread how contexts are a central
concept in FFmpeg's design.  Even where I understood the code on a
mechanical level, I had drastically underestimated their importance
because I didn't have a mental model to understand them.  Binding
FFmpeg functionality in another language is only half the problem -
the interface needs to be explained in terms they can understand,
or rewritten in terms they already know.

Second, the interface is full of special cases that make translation
to other languages burdensome.  For example, C errors are based on
returning a value and requiring the caller to check it explicitly;
whereas most other languages throw an error and allow the caller to
catch it or not.  A translator needs to convert every one of those,
but FFmpeg functions don't have a standard mechanism to signal the
correct behaviour for a given function.  Even the documentation isn't
reliably helpful, sometimes saying a variant of "returns an AVERROR",
sometimes "returns a negative number", and sometimes it just
returns an int and expects the reader to dig through the source.
That eats up a huge amount of programmer time, and has to be done for
every language that wants a binding.

Solving those problems would make it far more practical for translators
to make bindings in other languages, and for new people to learn FFmpeg
even in C.  For example, creating an `enum AVERROR` and rewriting
functions to return it would make the code easier to read and drastically
cut translator time.

- Andrew Sayers
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 15:58:32 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi all
> > 
> > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > support for new codecs and formats.
> > 
> > Should we
> > * make a list of longer term goals
> > * vote on them
> > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > ?
> > 
> > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> >  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > to a previously agreed goal.
> > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > 
> > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> >  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > 
> > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > 
> [...]
> > * client side / in browser support
> > (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
> > browser)
> > bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> 
> There are already several projects on github, the most prominent one:
> https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm/
> 
> In general it would be useful to provide libav* bindings to other
> languages, for example:
> https://github.com/PyAV-Org/PyAV
> https://github.com/zmwangx/rust-ffmpeg
> 
> Not sure these should be really moved to FFmpeg though.

From a user PoV it would be nice if there was a official
python, rust and wasm binding

It also would draw in more developers and users to FFmpeg.
test coverage might also improve

I think the 2 questions are.
 1. is there a binding for some language that wants to become the official
FFmpeg binding for that language ?
 2. does the FFmpeg community want that too ?

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
conveniently.
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Lynne]

Apr 22, 2024, 13:07 by stefa...@gmail.com:

> On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
>> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
>>
>
> If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
> the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
> be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
> association with the old incompatible tool .
>

That's basically what txproto is, only that it also does transcoding
and filtering. It can accept incoming streams and output them to
multiple destinations via remux or transcode. It was built as an
ffmpeg.c with a scriptable interface and with dynamic switching.
It doesn't do this out of the box, it's something you have to script,
but that was largely the case that ffserver had.

What is missing is something that ffserver had, which was that
it was able to express exactly what lavf had in its context on both
the sender and receiver, for which it needed private APIs.
AVTransport can largely fill that niche.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Sunday 2024-04-21 22:12:56 -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...] 
> A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern streaming
> in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.

If this is going to happen, my advice is to use "ffstream" to stick to
the ffVERB convention (with the exeption of ffmpeg, which might still
be converted to ffconvert with some proper aliasing) and to avoid
association with the old incompatible tool .
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/17/2024 10:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

Hi all

The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
support for new codecs and formats.

Should we
* make a list of longer term goals
* vote on them
* and then together work towards implementing them
?

(The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
  than adding codecs and refactoring code)
It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
to a previously agreed goal.
And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for

(larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
  them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)

Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:

* Switch to a plugin architecture
 (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
  friction as the team and community grows)
* ffchat
 (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
 bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
 all parts for it already but some people where against it
* client side / in browser support
 (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the browser)
 bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
 if we let others take this area as its important and significant
* AI / neural network filters and codecs
 The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
 neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
* [your idea here]


A full rewrite of ffserver, using only public API, and with modern 
streaming in mind. It would give a lot of code in lavf some use.
But this only if it gets a maintainer that can update it if needed when 
APIs are added or replaced.




thx


___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:11:36PM +0800, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer 
>  a écrit :
> >Hi all
> >
> >The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> >Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> >support for new codecs and formats.
> 
> OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or 
> more or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that 
> it's expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be 
> good at anything else.
> 
> Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up 
> its own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, 
> Chinese AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most 
> applications.
> 
> If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be 
> better served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure 
> and brand would probably do you a disservice otherwise.

I will disagree on this a bit

If we for a moment look at the commerical world (but its not fundamentally 
different in OSS)

Projects/Companies are created to fill some need, initially they
often need to concentarte on a narrow market because they dont have the
resources to do "everything" and if they try they go bankrupt.
Once they are established and have the resources they grow or they die

Microsoft started with a OS in 1985, added an office suite in 1990
internet explorer in 1995, xbox in 2001, Microsoft Azure in 2008
and you can fill in more.
Today Microsoft is one of the largest companies in teh world.

You can do the same with apple, google, or others.

OTOH pick any company of your choice that did not expand and compare.
for example kodak and not expanding out of analoge photogrpahy is an example

FFmpeg has over a billion users indirectly. Dont you (plural) see the
opertunity here to leverage this ?

Sure this examples are commerical companies and we are OSS.
But really its the same. A company lives and dies with its
revenue and profits in $.
OSS lives and dies with its users and developers.

developers largely dont find maintaining a "mature" codebase interresting
they do find it interresting to develop new things.

And what you wrote above
"FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's expected to be good at 
what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at anything else."

yes. Iam not suggesting to have ffmpeg the applications suddenly do something 
entirely different
the same way as office doesnt suddenly become a internet browser.

What iam suggesting is that we should expend beyond ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe
beyond what our libraraies provide. And to leverage our quite large userbase

i know people dont like it but its a good example. If we added a ffchat
it immedeatly would have a large number of users.
It matters for a chat app, that there are people you can chat with havng the
same app.

You can pick something else, ffserver2 is a good example.

ffedit, a video editor for example

The situation is just bizare.
People complain on one hand that we lack new blood, we lack developers to 
maintain
the codebase. But then things that would bring in new blood and developers are
immedeatly opposed by 3 times more developers than are actually actively
working on FFmpeg.

We can and probably should switch to something more flashy than a pure ML
based development model with no good GUI access but thats not going to
make maintaining mature software sexy for new developers IMHO

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good.
Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart
than the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ondřej Fiala]

On Fri Apr 19, 2024 at 12:45 AM CEST, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> a small change to trac is easy to do and easy to undo, if it helps,
> iam not sure a switch to GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo will happen, or even if it is a 
> good idea.
>
> we lack people with time and interrest to review and apply patches
> switching the tools will cost more time, and working
> with these tools would also add burden (at least to me)
>
> other projects also seem not to have switched if i look at LKML for
> example
>
> IMO, if we can keep the mailing list workflow and at the same time
> provide people who prefer it a "in browser" way to interact with
> patches, submit, approve and so on. That would be best.
> It seems patchwork does not fully fill this role.
> Can something be done to improve patchwork so it works better maybe ?

Have you looked at SourceHut[1]? Their stated goal is building a FLOSS forge 
that
works on top of email rather than sidetracking it like GitHub & its clones do.
The whole software can AFAIK be self-hosted and includes an in-browser git 
viewer,
issue tracker[2], and mailing lists with decent support for patches[3].

[1] https://sourcehut.org/
[2] example: https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hare
[3] example: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 17 avril 2024 21:58:32 GMT+08:00, Michael Niedermayer 
 a écrit :
>Hi all
>
>The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
>Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
>support for new codecs and formats.

OSS projects of age similar to FFmpeg are either mature (like FFmpeg), or more 
or less dead. Besides, FFmpeg is an established brand, which means that it's 
expected to be good at what it's been doing... and not expected to be good at 
anything else.

Of course there are also specific aspects: back then, every company made up its 
own codecs. Nowadays, there's at most three tracks (for video): H.26x, Chinese 
AVSx and AV-x, while AVC or HEVC have become "good enough" for most 
applications.

If (generic) you want to work on radical innovation, I think you will be better 
served by creating a new project. Both the FFmpeg project structure and brand 
would probably do you a disservice otherwise.
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 08:00:28PM +0200, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 19:35 Zhao Zhili  wrote:
> 
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel  On Behalf Of
> > Niklas Haas
> > > Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches 
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> > mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > >
> > > A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> > > just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> > > mailing list.
> > >
> > > I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
> >
> > VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went t far
> > ),
> > I don't think plugin is that dangerous.
> >
> > Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.
> >
> > Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for
> > our
> > development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
> > upstream.
> >
> > >
> > > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > >
> > > So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> > > somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> > >
> > > This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> > > community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> > > several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> > > ML+pingspam model.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
> > I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.
> >
> > Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter
> > out
> > patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame
> > it
> > doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.
> >
> 
> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.

> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance

I think we first need to understand what exact problem there is with the
ML/Patchwork workflow. Write this down. See if we all agree on that

Look at what workflow* people use
Look at what alternatives to ML/Patchwork there are
I think others than gitlab where suggested like gittea and forgejo

And then carefully evaluate each for cost vs benefit.

If we agree on one then its probably best to setup a small test environment
and have the whole team try to use that before we consider a switch


> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)

why ?


> 3. Move fate running to there

why ?


workflow*
For example, i go through patches on the ML with mutt and i have one key
to apply a patch and another to open an editor and write a reply. Also i 
have
my muttrc setup so it colorizes diffs nicely so patches are easy to review
I do test close to every patch posted on ffmpeg-devel, so being able
to quickly apply patches matters. If i had to use a GUI based browser
and click around with the mouse it would probably mean an end for me
testing all patches, simply as it would be too inconvenient and slow.

thx

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Democracy is the form of government in which you can choose your dictator


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:01:42PM +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 20:50, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > > Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing 
> > > how
> > > docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating 
> > > documentation
> > its just running doxygen with a Doxyfile
> > the Doxyfile is not  doc/Doxyfile from git because that could be a security
> > issue. But its a very similar file
> > 
> > thx
> 
> Aha!  But it's running doxygen i386, right?  I've been building the docs
> with an x86_64 machine, and the links to most functions are different.
> Installing doxygen:i386 seems to fix it.
> 
> Assuming the security issue is just that people could inject arbitrary code
> into the Doxyfile, is it possible to upload that file somewhere, then
> link to it (and mention the architecture thing) from e.g. the README?
> 
> To be clear - it's definitely the right move to run a version of doxygen
> that generates links that are compatible with older releases,
> but it would have saved me some time if that was written somewhere :)

doxygen on the server is 1.8.17, amd64 architecture

The used Doxyfile is attached, someone probably should go over it and
reduce differences to what is in git master (and then send me a patch)
without breaking any past release branch
i dont have the time for that

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety -- Benjamin Franklin
# Doxyfile 1.8.2

# This file describes the settings to be used by the documentation system
# doxygen (www.doxygen.org) for a project.
#
# All text after a hash (#) is considered a comment and will be ignored.
# The format is:
#   TAG = value [value, ...]
# For lists items can also be appended using:
#   TAG += value [value, ...]
# Values that contain spaces should be placed between quotes (" ").

#---
# Project related configuration options
#---

# This tag specifies the encoding used for all characters in the config file
# that follow. The default is UTF-8 which is also the encoding used for all
# text before the first occurrence of this tag. Doxygen uses libiconv (or the
# iconv built into libc) for the transcoding. See
# http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv for the list of possible encodings.

DOXYFILE_ENCODING  = UTF-8

# The PROJECT_NAME tag is a single word (or sequence of words) that should
# identify the project. Note that if you do not use Doxywizard you need
# to put quotes around the project name if it contains spaces.

PROJECT_NAME   = FFmpeg

# The PROJECT_NUMBER tag can be used to enter a project or revision number.
# This could be handy for archiving the generated documentation or
# if some version control system is used.

PROJECT_NUMBER =

# Using the PROJECT_BRIEF tag one can provide an optional one line description
# for a project that appears at the top of each page and should give viewer
# a quick idea about the purpose of the project. Keep the description short.

PROJECT_BRIEF  =

# With the PROJECT_LOGO tag one can specify an logo or icon that is
# included in the documentation. The maximum height of the logo should not
# exceed 55 pixels and the maximum width should not exceed 200 pixels.
# Doxygen will copy the logo to the output directory.

PROJECT_LOGO   =

# The OUTPUT_DIRECTORY tag is used to specify the (relative or absolute)
# base path where the generated documentation will be put.
# If a relative path is entered, it will be relative to the location
# where doxygen was started. If left blank the current directory will be used.

OUTPUT_DIRECTORY   = doxy

# If the CREATE_SUBDIRS tag is set to YES, then doxygen will create
# 4096 sub-directories (in 2 levels) under the output directory of each output
# format and will distribute the generated files over these directories.
# Enabling this option can be useful when feeding doxygen a huge amount of
# source files, where putting all generated files in the same directory would
# otherwise cause performance problems for the file system.

CREATE_SUBDIRS = NO

# The OUTPUT_LANGUAGE tag is used to specify the language in which all
# documentation generated by doxygen is written. Doxygen will use this
# information to generate all constant output in the proper language.
# The default language is English, other supported languages are:
# Afrikaans, Arabic, Brazilian, Catalan, Chinese, Chinese-Traditional,
# Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Esperanto, Farsi, Finnish, French, German,
# Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Japanese-en (Japanese with English
# messages), Korean, Korean-en, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Macedonian, Persian,
# Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:31 AM James Almer  wrote:

> On 4/19/2024 7:28 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> >>> vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
>  dcni...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> >> about
>  what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> >
> 
>  +1
> 
>  Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> >> not
>  being afraid to ban them when needed.
>  Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
>  people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> 
> >>>
> >>> The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> >>> https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> >>> remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban
> from
> >>> the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be
> confirmed
> >> by
> >>> the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >>>
> >>> Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> >> not
> >>> be an issue.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> >> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> >> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had
> no
> >> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
> >>
> >
> > By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
> > majority of active controlled figures.
>
> What bots? That makes no sense.
>

Current situation in FFmpeg makes no sense.
Could someone explain current FFmpeg situation?


>
> >
> > So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
> > and 0 innovations,
> > with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
> > already happening.
> >
> > Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
> > I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very
> generous
> > today.
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Vittorio
> >> ___
> >> 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".
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:58 PM Vittorio Giovara 
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> > > dcni...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> about
> > > what
> > > > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > > > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > > > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > > > 3. Move fate running to there
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> not
> > > being afraid to ban them when needed.
> > > Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> > > people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> > >
> >
> > The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> > https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> > remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
> > the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed
> by
> > the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >
> > Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> not
> > be an issue.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
>

Yes. But anyone else, even you, could start a GA permaban vote also. (I'm
not suggesting you do this, I'm just saying it so it's clear that it
doesn't have to be initiated by a CC member.)

Ronald
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[James Almer]

On 4/19/2024 7:28 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje 
wrote:


Hi,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
wrote:


On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
dcni...@gmail.com>
wrote:


If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago

about

what

to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
3. Move fate running to there



+1

Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and

not

being afraid to ban them when needed.
Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
people have access to the mailing list control panel.



The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed

by

the General Assembly, in a majority vote."

Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will

not

be an issue.



Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?



By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
majority of active controlled figures.


What bots? That makes no sense.



So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
and 0 innovations,
with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
already happening.

Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very generous
today.



--
Vittorio
___
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".

___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> > > dcni...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> about
> > > what
> > > > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > > > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > > > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > > > 3. Move fate running to there
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> not
> > > being afraid to ban them when needed.
> > > Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> > > people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> > >
> >
> > The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> > https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> > remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
> > the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed
> by
> > the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >
> > Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> not
> > be an issue.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
>

By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
majority of active controlled figures.

So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
and 0 innovations,
with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
already happening.

Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very generous
today.


> --
> Vittorio
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> > dcni...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> > what
> > > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > > 3. Move fate running to there
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> > being afraid to ban them when needed.
> > Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> > people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> >
>
> The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
> the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed by
> the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
>
> Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will not
> be an issue.
>

Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had no
effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
-- 
Vittorio
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 9:45 PM James Almer  wrote:

> On 4/19/2024 4:05 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giov...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> >> dcni...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> >> what
> >>> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> >>> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> >>> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> >>> 3. Move fate running to there
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> >> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> >> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> >> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> >>
> >
> > Welcome to the New LibAV Order!
>
> Paul, please, can you stop with this?
>

I stand for Truth And Justice.

You all stand for Force And Power.


> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara 
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> dcni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> >
>
> +1
>
> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
>

The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban from
the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be confirmed by
the General Assembly, in a majority vote."

Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will not
be an issue.

Ronald
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:06 PM Vittorio Giovara 
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> dcni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about
> what
> > to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> > 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> > 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> > 3. Move fate running to there
> >
>
> +1
>
> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
>

Welcome to the New LibAV Order!

-- 
> Vittorio
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster 
wrote:

> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> 3. Move fate running to there
>

+1

Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and not
being afraid to ban them when needed.
Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
people have access to the mailing list control panel.
-- 
Vittorio
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Diederick C. Niehorster]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 19:35 Zhao Zhili  wrote:

>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ffmpeg-devel  On Behalf Of
> Niklas Haas
> > Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches 
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> >
> > A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> > just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> > mailing list.
> >
> > I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
>
> VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went t far
> ),
> I don't think plugin is that dangerous.
>
> Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.
>
> Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for
> our
> development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
> upstream.
>
> >
> > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> >
> > So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> > somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> >
> > This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> > community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> > several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> > ML+pingspam model.
>
> +1.
>
> I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
> I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.
>
> Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter
> out
> patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame
> it
> doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.
>

If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago about what
to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
3. Move fate running to there

Etc

>
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Zhao Zhili]

> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel  On Behalf Of Niklas Haas
> Sent: 2024年4月19日 22:50
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches 
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation
> 
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer 
>  wrote:
> > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> 
> A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> mailing list.
> 
> I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.

VLC is plugin based, gstreamer is plugin based too (which went t far ),
I don't think plugin is that dangerous.

Firstly, we can enable plugin interface only with enable-gpl.

Secondly, we can have a less stable plugin interface than public API, for our
development convenience, and encourage plugin authors to contribute to
upstream.

> 
> > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> 
> So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
> 
> This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> ML+pingspam model.

+1.

I can't remember how many patches I have ping. It's really frustration.
I ask for permission to commit mostly due to this.

Now I can keep track of my own patches, but it's still not easy to filter out
patches I'm interested to review (I can blame the email client, but blame it
doesn't help). I'm sure I can review more patches with a new workflow.

> 
> We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
> least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
> N days gets *automatically* merged.
> 
> I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
> this. (Maybe SPI?)
> 
> > Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> > are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> > code in any other way.
> > IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> > on their own terms.
> > No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> > No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> > No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> > simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > * ffchat
> > > > (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > > bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> > > > all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > >
> > > This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
> > > should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
> > > FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
> >
> > ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > * client side / in browser support
> > > > (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
> > > > browser)
> > > > bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > > > if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> > >
> > > I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
> > > FFmpeg for decoding?
> >
> > FFmpeg does more than decoding.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> > > > The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> > > > neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> > >
> > > We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> > > needed?
> >
> > more of that AND more convenience
> >
> > lets pick a comparission
> > to run fate
> > you write "make fate"
> > if you want to do it with the samples its
> > make fate-rsync ; make fate
> >
> > if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts 
> > reading their docs
> > and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? .

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 19 Apr 2024, at 16:50, Niklas Haas wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer 
>  wrote:
>> A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
>> care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
>
> A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
> just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
> mailing list.
>
> I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.
>
>> Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
>> The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
>> are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
>
> So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
> somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.
>
> This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
> community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
> several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
> ML+pingspam model.

I agree with that.

IMO extending patchwork while possible is just a stopgap measure and
requires quite a bit of effort too that is probably better spent elsewhere.

Using Trac to manage patches additionally just adds even more inconsistent 
places
to have patch info that go out of sync with reality like patchwork already does…

I am by no means a die hard GitLab fan, quite the contrary, but I still believe
it is a vast improvement over the Mailing List workflow and if there are 
shortcomings
in the tooling so that some peoples workflows can continue to work, efforts are 
probably
better spent overcoming these, rather than „beating a dead horse“ (patching 
Patchwork).

>
> We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
> least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
> N days gets *automatically* merged.

Just to clarify, it does not automatically merge but rather tags them
and a maintainer still does the actual merge.

>
> I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
> this. (Maybe SPI?)
>
>> Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
>> are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
>> code in any other way.
>> IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
>> on their own terms.
>> No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
>> No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
>> No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
>> simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
 * ffchat
 (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
 bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
 all parts for it already but some people where against it
>>>
>>> This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
>>> should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
>>> FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
>>
>> ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
>>
>>
>>>
 * client side / in browser support
 (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
 browser)
 bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
 if we let others take this area as its important and significant
>>>
>>> I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
>>> FFmpeg for decoding?
>>
>> FFmpeg does more than decoding.
>>
>>
>>>
 * AI / neural network filters and codecs
 The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
 neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
>>>
>>> We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
>>> needed?
>>
>> more of that AND more convenience
>>
>> lets pick a comparission
>> to run fate
>> you write "make fate"
>> if you want to do it with the samples its
>> make fate-rsync ; make fate
>>
>> if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts 
>> reading their docs
>> and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? 
>>
>> how many people do that ?
>>
>> thx
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> -- 
>> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>>
>> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
>> -- Xenocrates
>> ___
>> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Niklas Haas]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:53:51 +0200 Michael Niedermayer  
wrote:
> A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.

A plugin system will only solve this insomuch as plugin authors will
just host their plugin code on GitHub instead of bothering with the
mailing list.

I think it runs a good risk of basically killing the project.

> Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews

So, rather than all of the above, what I think we should do is contract
somebody to set up, manage, host and maintain a GitLab instance for us.

This would probably be the single most cost effective boost to both
community growth and innovation I can think of, as it will remove
several of the major grievances and barriers to entry with the
ML+pingspam model.

We can use a system like VLC's auto-merge bot, where any MR that has at
least one developer approval, no unresolved issues, and no activity for
N days gets *automatically* merged.

I'm sure that if we try, we can find an interested party willing to fund
this. (Maybe SPI?)

> Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> code in any other way.
> IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> on their own terms.
> No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API documentation
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > * ffchat
> > > (expand into realtime chat / zoom) this would
> > > bring in more users and developers, and we basically have almost
> > > all parts for it already but some people where against it
> > 
> > This seems like a user application on top of FFmpeg, not something that
> > should be part of FFmpeg core. Can you explain what modifications in
> > FFmpeg would be necessary for something like this?
> 
> ffmpeg, ffplay, ffprobe are also user applications.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > * client side / in browser support
> > > (expand towards webapps, webpages using ffmpeg client side in the 
> > > browser)
> > > bring in more users and developers, and it will be costly for us
> > > if we let others take this area as its important and significant
> > 
> > I don't understand this point - don't all major browsers already vendor
> > FFmpeg for decoding?
> 
> FFmpeg does more than decoding.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > * AI / neural network filters and codecs
> > > The future seems to be AI based. Future Filters and Codecs will use
> > > neural networks. FFmpeg can be at the forefront, developing these
> > 
> > We already have TensorFlow support, no? (vf_sr etc.) What more is
> > needed?
> 
> more of that AND more convenience
> 
> lets pick a comparission
> to run fate
> you write "make fate"
> if you want to do it with the samples its
> make fate-rsync ; make fate
> 
> if you want to use vf_sr, its reading the docs, looking at some scripts 
> reading their docs
> and i presume selecting a training set ? creating a model ? 
> 
> how many people do that ?
> 
> thx
> 
> [...]
> 
> -- 
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> 
> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
> -- Xenocrates
> ___
> 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:19 AM Michael Niedermayer 
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:13:40PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > On 4/18/2024 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > >
> > > > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > > > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > > > > support for new codecs and formats.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we
> > > > > * make a list of longer term goals
> > > > > * vote on them
> > > > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> > > > >   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > > > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > > > > to a previously agreed goal.
> > > > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants
> for
> > > > >
> > > > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> > > > >   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > > > >
> > > > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Switch to a plugin architecture
> > > > >  (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and
> reduce
> > > > >   friction as the team and community grows)
> > > >
> > > > This would almost surely hurt productivity
> > >
> > > i dont agree, ill elaborae below
> > >
> > >
> > > > as it will require exposing,
> > > > versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal
> APIs
> > >
> > > yes to some extend that is needed. It can be more or less depending
> > > on how things are implemented
> > >
> > >
> > > > which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.
> > >
> > > we are modifying these APIs for decades. That modification of APIs
> > > their documentation and all code using them costs time.
> >
> > The AVCodec hooks being internal allowed us to add autoinserted bsfs and
> to
> > painlessly rewrite the decouple I/O callbacks to work as a pure pull
> based
> > interface. Were said internals public, that wouldn't have been possible.
>
> A decoder API needs packet in, frame out.
> AVPacket and AVFrame are public.
> (and a bunch of key-value data like width / height / timebase /
> pixelformat / aspect / ...
>  teh struct for that is also public since a long time)
> I dont see the problem.
>
> you have the decoder API facing the user, that causes no problems,
> i dont agree that having a decoder API (or encoder, muxer, demuxer, ...)
> facing a plugin would be a bigger problem than the APIs we already have
> public
> sure there are details, sure there are things that need one to think about
> and sleep over and all that but these are from a high level point of
> view simple and also the same interfaces to what we already have public
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > More so we have issues with patch-management. And i claim this is
> > > not the mailing list but a lack of time and in some cases a lack of
> > > interrest in many areas.
> > >
> > > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > >
> > > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> >
> > A lot of patches fall through the cracks rather than being ignored.
> > There are people that send patchsets unthreaded (Because of misconfigured
> > git send-email i suppose), and it makes browsing your mailbox hard.
>
> well i can say that i dont review many patches anymore because i just dont
> have
> the time, its not that i cant keep track of what i wanted to review.
>
> either i make a note in a TODO list or i keep the patch marked as NEW
> in my mail user agent.
>
> trac in some sense or patchwork are just more public TODO lists
> that can be shared between people so if one doesnt do it another
> developer sees it and can do it.
>
>
> >
> > > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > > Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> > > are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> > > code in any other way.
> > > IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> > > on their own terms.
> >
> > You say the ML is not the problem, but it sort of is. An MR based
> > development would greatly improve this problem.
>
> People historically where very opposed to merge requests
>
> But, having a public git repo (that people already have)
> asking for it to be merged. You get a merge commit and someone will
> probably
> feel offended by that. (thats not what you meant i guess)
> but i would 100% support doing git merge requests.
> (there are good arguments from people much smarter than me why
> 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:13:40PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:02:07PM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:58:32 +0200 Michael Niedermayer 
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Hi all
> > > > 
> > > > The pace of inovation in FFmpeg has been slowing down.
> > > > Most work is concentarted nowadays on code refactoring, and adding
> > > > support for new codecs and formats.
> > > > 
> > > > Should we
> > > > * make a list of longer term goals
> > > > * vote on them
> > > > * and then together work towards implementing them
> > > > ?
> > > > 
> > > > (The idea here is to increase the success of larger efforts
> > > >   than adding codecs and refactoring code)
> > > > It would then also not be possible for individuals to object
> > > > to a previously agreed goal.
> > > > And it would add ideas for which we can try to get funding/grants for
> > > > 
> > > > (larger scale changes need consensus first that we as a whole want
> > > >   them before we would be able to ask for funding/grants for them)
> > > > 
> > > > Some ideas and why they would help FFmpeg:
> > > > 
> > > > * Switch to a plugin architecture
> > > >  (Increase the number of developers willing to contribute and reduce
> > > >   friction as the team and community grows)
> > > 
> > > This would almost surely hurt productivity
> > 
> > i dont agree, ill elaborae below
> > 
> > 
> > > as it will require exposing,
> > > versioning, documenting and maintaining a vast number of internal APIs
> > 
> > yes to some extend that is needed. It can be more or less depending
> > on how things are implemented
> > 
> > 
> > > which we are currently at the liberty of modifying freely.
> > 
> > we are modifying these APIs for decades. That modification of APIs
> > their documentation and all code using them costs time.
> 
> The AVCodec hooks being internal allowed us to add autoinserted bsfs and to
> painlessly rewrite the decouple I/O callbacks to work as a pure pull based
> interface. Were said internals public, that wouldn't have been possible.

A decoder API needs packet in, frame out.
AVPacket and AVFrame are public.
(and a bunch of key-value data like width / height / timebase / pixelformat / 
aspect / ...
 teh struct for that is also public since a long time)
I dont see the problem.

you have the decoder API facing the user, that causes no problems,
i dont agree that having a decoder API (or encoder, muxer, demuxer, ...)
facing a plugin would be a bigger problem than the APIs we already have
public
sure there are details, sure there are things that need one to think about
and sleep over and all that but these are from a high level point of
view simple and also the same interfaces to what we already have public


> 
> > 
> > More so we have issues with patch-management. And i claim this is
> > not the mailing list but a lack of time and in some cases a lack of
> > interrest in many areas.
> > 
> > A plugin system moves this patch-management to people who actually
> > care, that is the authors of the codecs and (de)muxers.
> > 
> > Our productivity as is, is not good, many patches are ignored.
> 
> A lot of patches fall through the cracks rather than being ignored.
> There are people that send patchsets unthreaded (Because of misconfigured
> git send-email i suppose), and it makes browsing your mailbox hard.

well i can say that i dont review many patches anymore because i just dont have
the time, its not that i cant keep track of what i wanted to review.

either i make a note in a TODO list or i keep the patch marked as NEW
in my mail user agent.

trac in some sense or patchwork are just more public TODO lists
that can be shared between people so if one doesnt do it another
developer sees it and can do it.


> 
> > The people caring about these patches are their Authors and yet they
> > are powerless as they must sometimes wait many months for reviews
> > Besides that, developers are leaving for various reasons and they
> > are forced to setup full forks not being able to maintain their
> > code in any other way.
> > IMO A plugin system would improve productivity as everyone could work
> > on their own terms.
> 
> You say the ML is not the problem, but it sort of is. An MR based
> development would greatly improve this problem.

People historically where very opposed to merge requests

But, having a public git repo (that people already have)
asking for it to be merged. You get a merge commit and someone will probably
feel offended by that. (thats not what you meant i guess)
but i would 100% support doing git merge requests.
(there are good arguments from people much smarter than me why
merging is better than rebasing)


> 
> > No week or month long delays and weekly pinging patches
> > No risk about patches being rejected or ignored
> > No need to read every other discussion on the ML. One can just
> > simply work on their own plugin looking just at the API 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:15:48PM +0200, epira...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18 Apr 2024, at 22:15, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:19:50AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
> >>> The best option is to figure stuff out.
> >> [...]
> >>> I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
> >>> like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
> >>> because there is no better option.
> >>>
> >>> But there are issues:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be 
> >>> great.
> >>> It was completely ignored.
> >>
> >> Please ping the patch or send a new one.
> >>
> >>> If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.
> >>
> >> I think contribution management is a serious issue here.
> >>
> >> What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
> >> will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
> >> pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
> >> interactions.
> >>
> >> Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
> >> process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
> >> review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
> >> patch).
> >>
> >> Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
> >> maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
> >> a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
> >> got hundreds of backlog emails).
> >>
> >> In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
> >> developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
> >> tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
> >> timely fashion.
> >>
> >> This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
> >> FLOSS projects.
> >>
> >> Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
> >> developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
> >> other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
> >> tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project).
> >>
> >> It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
> >> having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
> >> times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
> >> affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
> >> is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.
> >>
> >> We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
> >> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/
> >>
> >> but that's not really providing an effective workflow.
> >>
> >> Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
> >> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?seriesTTML=both=
> >>
> >> I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.
> >
> > Would it help if i add a "patch" type to trac.ffmpeg.org ?
> >
> > If patches are missed on patchwork or its confusing, then
> > patch authors could open such a ticket type=patch that points to the 
> > patchwork patch
> >
> > as tickets have all the metadata from keywords over priority to component
> > and do also allow voting. It may help keeping track of patches and also
> > allow the community to express their preferance with voting.
> 
> Just stating the obvious here but GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo or similar
> would solve this without needing absolutely weird workarounds
> like this…

a small change to trac is easy to do and easy to undo, if it helps,
iam not sure a switch to GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo will happen, or even if it is a 
good idea.

we lack people with time and interrest to review and apply patches
switching the tools will cost more time, and working
with these tools would also add burden (at least to me)

other projects also seem not to have switched if i look at LKML for
example

IMO, if we can keep the mailing list workflow and at the same time
provide people who prefer it a "in browser" way to interact with
patches, submit, approve and so on. That would be best.
It seems patchwork does not fully fill this role.
Can something be done to improve patchwork so it works better maybe ?

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Dictatorship: All citizens are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the politicians to enforce control.
Democracy: All politicians are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the citizens to enforce control.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Andrew Sayers]

On 18/04/2024 20:50, Michael Niedermayer wrote:


[...]

Without getting too far off-topic, I would also be interested in knowing how
docs are actually generated in practice. I've tried generating documentation

its just running doxygen with a Doxyfile
the Doxyfile is not  doc/Doxyfile from git because that could be a security
issue. But its a very similar file

thx


Aha!  But it's running doxygen i386, right?  I've been building the docs
with an x86_64 machine, and the links to most functions are different.
Installing doxygen:i386 seems to fix it.

Assuming the security issue is just that people could inject arbitrary code
into the Doxyfile, is it possible to upload that file somewhere, then
link to it (and mention the architecture thing) from e.g. the README?

To be clear - it's definitely the right move to run a version of doxygen
that generates links that are compatible with older releases,
but it would have saved me some time if that was written somewhere :)

- Andrew Sayers
___
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[epirat07]

On 18 Apr 2024, at 22:15, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:19:50AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Wednesday 2024-04-17 19:21:39 -0700, Aidan wrote:
>>> The best option is to figure stuff out.
>> [...]
>>> I use FFmpeg to download HLS streams from the internet or convert files
>>> like probably most people do. FFmpeg is the ultimate way of doing this
>>> because there is no better option.
>>>
>>> But there are issues:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I submitted a patch for a TTML decoder because I thought it would be great.
>>> It was completely ignored.
>>
>> Please ping the patch or send a new one.
>>
>>> If my patch was seriously bad, then fine. But seriously *no one cared*.
>>
>> I think contribution management is a serious issue here.
>>
>> What happens when you send a patch is that if you're lucky someone
>> will be interested and put some effort to review and eventually get it
>> pushed, which depending on several factors might require several
>> interactions.
>>
>> Sometimes contributors are side-tracked or frustrated and the review
>> process is interrupted. Sometimes the reviewer won't reply, and the
>> review also might be stuck (in this case you might want to ping the
>> patch).
>>
>> Sometimes there is no qualified or interested developer around, or
>> maybe those ones are busy with other things (and it's easy to miss
>> a patch, especially if you don't check emails since a few days and you
>> got hundreds of backlog emails).
>>
>> In general, this is done on a best effort basis (read as: most
>> developers are volunteers and they might have job/families/stuff to
>> tend to), there is no guarantee that a patch might be reviewed in a
>> timely fashion.
>>
>> This is not a problem specific with FFmpeg, but in general with most
>> FLOSS projects.
>>
>> Probably we should find ways to fund such activites, so that a
>> developer can spend more time on reviewing work, but this comes with
>> other risks/issues (since managing money is also complex of potential
>> tensions in a mostly volunteering-based project).
>>
>> It's also very difficult to track the sent patches, and that's why
>> having a Pull-Request process a-la github has been proposed several
>> times; we cannot switch to github for several reasons (licensing and
>> affilitation issues with platform owner) and handling your own gitlab
>> is costly and we lack volunteers at the moment.
>>
>> We are using patchwork to mitigate the tracking issue:
>> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/
>>
>> but that's not really providing an effective workflow.
>>
>> Personally I find the status tracking confusing, e.g.:
>> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/list/?seriesTTML=both=
>>
>> I cannot easily figure out what was integrated and what not.
>
> Would it help if i add a "patch" type to trac.ffmpeg.org ?
>
> If patches are missed on patchwork or its confusing, then
> patch authors could open such a ticket type=patch that points to the 
> patchwork patch
>
> as tickets have all the metadata from keywords over priority to component
> and do also allow voting. It may help keeping track of patches and also
> allow the community to express their preferance with voting.

Just stating the obvious here but GitLab/Gitea/Forgejo or similar
would solve this without needing absolutely weird workarounds
like this…

>
> thx
>
> [...]
> -- 
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and
> there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
> some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. -- Plato
> ___
> 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".