| Message ID | 20221024074221.217-1-d.kozinski@samsung.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [FFmpeg-devel,v14,1/9] avcodec/evc: MPEG-5 EVC codec registration | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| andriy/make_x86 | success | Make finished |
| andriy/make_fate_x86 | success | Make fate finished |
| yinshiyou/make_loongarch64 | success | Make finished |
| yinshiyou/make_fate_loongarch64 | success | Make fate finished |
Oct 24, 2022, 09:42 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > - Changelog update > - MAINTAINERS update > > Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> > --- > Changelog | 3 ++- > MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog > index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f 100644 > --- a/Changelog > +++ b/Changelog > @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: > - remap_opencl filter > - added chromakey_cuda filter > - added bilateral_cuda filter > +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) > +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) > > > version 5.0: > @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: > - anlmf audio filter > - IMF demuxer (experimental) > > - > version 4.4: > - AudioToolbox output device > - MacCaption demuxer > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: > libvpx* James Zern > libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer > libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint > lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger > mdec.c Michael Niedermayer > @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: > dv.c Roman Shaposhnik > electronicarts.c Peter Ross > epafdec.c Paul B Mahol > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > ffm* Baptiste Coudurier > flic.c Mike Melanson > flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer > Nak, that list is only for those with push access, and no other changes may be made in the same patch.
On 10/24/2022 12:56 PM, Lynne wrote: > Oct 24, 2022, 09:42 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> - Changelog update >> - MAINTAINERS update >> >> Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> >> --- >> Changelog | 3 ++- >> MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog >> index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f 100644 >> --- a/Changelog >> +++ b/Changelog >> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: >> - remap_opencl filter >> - added chromakey_cuda filter >> - added bilateral_cuda filter >> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) >> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) >> >> >> version 5.0: >> @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: >> - anlmf audio filter >> - IMF demuxer (experimental) >> >> - >> version 4.4: >> - AudioToolbox output device >> - MacCaption demuxer >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: >> libvpx* James Zern >> libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer >> libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren >> + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski >> + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski >> libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint >> lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger >> mdec.c Michael Niedermayer >> @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: >> dv.c Roman Shaposhnik >> electronicarts.c Peter Ross >> epafdec.c Paul B Mahol >> + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski >> + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski >> + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski >> ffm* Baptiste Coudurier >> flic.c Mike Melanson >> flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer >> > > Nak, that list is only for those with push access, and no > other changes may be made in the same patch. No, it's the other way around. Those in this list may be eligible for push access. Being listed here gives them the right to NAK a patch made for a module they maintain, as well as their approval being (ideally) a requirement before making changes to it.
Oct 24, 2022, 18:29 by jamrial@gmail.com: > On 10/24/2022 12:56 PM, Lynne wrote: > >> Oct 24, 2022, 09:42 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: >> >>> - Changelog update >>> - MAINTAINERS update >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> >>> --- >>> Changelog | 3 ++- >>> MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog >>> index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f 100644 >>> --- a/Changelog >>> +++ b/Changelog >>> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: >>> - remap_opencl filter >>> - added chromakey_cuda filter >>> - added bilateral_cuda filter >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) >>> version 5.0: >>> @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: >>> - anlmf audio filter >>> - IMF demuxer (experimental) >>> - >>> version 4.4: >>> - AudioToolbox output device >>> - MacCaption demuxer >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>> index eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: >>> libvpx* James Zern >>> libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer >>> libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren >>> + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski >>> + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski >>> libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint >>> lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger >>> mdec.c Michael Niedermayer >>> @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: >>> dv.c Roman Shaposhnik >>> electronicarts.c Peter Ross >>> epafdec.c Paul B Mahol >>> + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski >>> + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski >>> + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski >>> ffm* Baptiste Coudurier >>> flic.c Mike Melanson >>> flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer >>> >> >> Nak, that list is only for those with push access, and no >> other changes may be made in the same patch. >> > > No, it's the other way around. Those in this list may be eligible for push access. > Being listed here gives them the right to NAK a patch made for a module they maintain, as well as their approval being (ideally) a requirement before making changes to it. > Nope. Michael will give anyone on the list push access. That's why I insisted on a rule to separate out such patches to avoid sneaking in. The whole problem would be solved by having 2 lists, but instead, users have to explicitly ask not to get push access if they want to get added to maintainers.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 01:17:15PM +0200, Lynne wrote: > > > > Oct 24, 2022, 18:29 by jamrial@gmail.com: > > > On 10/24/2022 12:56 PM, Lynne wrote: > > > >> Oct 24, 2022, 09:42 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> > >>> - Changelog update > >>> - MAINTAINERS update > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> > >>> --- > >>> Changelog | 3 ++- > >>> MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog > >>> index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f 100644 > >>> --- a/Changelog > >>> +++ b/Changelog > >>> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: > >>> - remap_opencl filter > >>> - added chromakey_cuda filter > >>> - added bilateral_cuda filter > >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) > >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) > >>> version 5.0: > >>> @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: > >>> - anlmf audio filter > >>> - IMF demuxer (experimental) > >>> - > >>> version 4.4: > >>> - AudioToolbox output device > >>> - MacCaption demuxer > >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > >>> index eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 > >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS > >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS > >>> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: > >>> libvpx* James Zern > >>> libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer > >>> libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren > >>> + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > >>> + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > >>> libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint > >>> lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger > >>> mdec.c Michael Niedermayer > >>> @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: > >>> dv.c Roman Shaposhnik > >>> electronicarts.c Peter Ross > >>> epafdec.c Paul B Mahol > >>> + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > >>> + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > >>> + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > >>> ffm* Baptiste Coudurier > >>> flic.c Mike Melanson > >>> flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer > >>> > >> > >> Nak, that list is only for those with push access, and no > >> other changes may be made in the same patch. > >> > > > > No, it's the other way around. Those in this list may be eligible for push access. > > Being listed here gives them the right to NAK a patch made for a module they maintain, as well as their approval being (ideally) a requirement before making changes to it. > > > > Nope. Michael will give anyone on the list push access. I have the feeling you dont trust me if thats the issue, 2 lists will not fix that The idea is that each developer who takes care of a bit of the code base (reviewing patches, approving them, fixing issues, adding features, ...) has the same rights as others. That is git write, the list is the MAINAINERs list. Its not really true that everyone in that file has write access because some people where forgotten and never asked, some simply dont know git well enough, some explicitly said they do not want git write, some sent a lot of messy patches and gave me pause so i didnt offer it and they also didnt ask. The list should be pretty close though, these are all exceptions not the rule. I fail to see the problem, btw. A Problem would be if someoe does something that requires to remove his git write or that requires us to think about "should we close that write account" (and yes i ignore here cases where core developers dont get along, thats not a issue for a maintainer/git write list) If we do not hit a situation where we consider closing an account then IMO we havnt really had a problem with giving write access out too liberal. The other side OTOH certainly has occured, people sending patches over and over again, pinging over and over again and finally the patch is found to be ok and applied. That would point more toward too little write permission, or at least not the right person having write access, or a lack of incentives to review and apply patches thx [...]
Oct 27, 2022, 18:45 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 01:17:15PM +0200, Lynne wrote: > >> >> >> >> Oct 24, 2022, 18:29 by jamrial@gmail.com: >> >> > On 10/24/2022 12:56 PM, Lynne wrote: >> > >> >> Oct 24, 2022, 09:42 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: >> >> >> >>> - Changelog update >> >>> - MAINTAINERS update >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> >> >>> --- >> >>> Changelog | 3 ++- >> >>> MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ >> >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog >> >>> index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f 100644 >> >>> --- a/Changelog >> >>> +++ b/Changelog >> >>> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: >> >>> - remap_opencl filter >> >>> - added chromakey_cuda filter >> >>> - added bilateral_cuda filter >> >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) >> >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) >> >>> version 5.0: >> >>> @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: >> >>> - anlmf audio filter >> >>> - IMF demuxer (experimental) >> >>> - >> >>> version 4.4: >> >>> - AudioToolbox output device >> >>> - MacCaption demuxer >> >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> >>> index eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 >> >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> >>> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: >> >>> libvpx* James Zern >> >>> libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer >> >>> libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren >> >>> + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski >> >>> + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski >> >>> libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint >> >>> lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger >> >>> mdec.c Michael Niedermayer >> >>> @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: >> >>> dv.c Roman Shaposhnik >> >>> electronicarts.c Peter Ross >> >>> epafdec.c Paul B Mahol >> >>> + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski >> >>> + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski >> >>> + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski >> >>> ffm* Baptiste Coudurier >> >>> flic.c Mike Melanson >> >>> flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer >> >>> >> >> >> >> Nak, that list is only for those with push access, and no >> >> other changes may be made in the same patch. >> >> >> > >> > No, it's the other way around. Those in this list may be eligible for push access. >> > Being listed here gives them the right to NAK a patch made for a module they maintain, as well as their approval being (ideally) a requirement before making changes to it. >> > >> >> Nope. Michael will give anyone on the list push access. >> > > I have the feeling you dont trust me > if thats the issue, 2 lists will not fix that > I trust you more than others. But in this case, I simply don't understand. > The idea is that each developer who takes care of a bit of the code base > (reviewing patches, approving them, fixing issues, adding features, ...) > has the same rights as others. > That is git write, the list is the MAINAINERs list. > > Its not really true that everyone in that file has write access because > some people where forgotten and never asked, some simply dont know git well > enough, some explicitly said they do not want git write, some sent a lot of > messy patches and gave me pause so i didnt offer it and they also didnt ask. > The list should be pretty close though, these are all exceptions not the rule. > The maintainers list used to be what jamrial said it was - an informal list of those with good knowledge on a piece of code to make a review, independent of whether they had push access or not. This is also how users/casual patch senders treated it as - they added their name if they felt like they would like to be consulted on. The list is always a bit outdated, and that's okay. You started treating it as a formal list of those with commit access, and it's been somewhat chaotic. Users still think it's an informal list, developers still think it's an informal list, only you seem to think it should be more formal. When a user submits a patch, I wonder if they're asking for push access or do they simply want to be consulted on for future patches? More often than not, it's the latter. I think there should be 2 lists, and if someone wants push access, they should just send a patch requesting it directly rather than using the vague maintainer term that no one pays attention to. If someone thinks they should have push access and ask, then they probably need it. The maintainers list could continue to be treated the same way it's been treated. > I fail to see the problem, btw. > A Problem would be if someoe does something that requires to remove his git > write or that requires us to think about "should we close that write account" > (and yes i ignore here cases where core developers dont get along, thats not > a issue for a maintainer/git write list) > If we do not hit a situation where we consider closing an account then IMO > we havnt really had a problem with giving write access out too liberal. > The other side OTOH certainly has occured, people sending patches over and > over again, pinging over and over again and finally the patch is found to be ok > and applied. That would point more toward too little write permission, or at least > not the right person having write access, or a lack of incentives to review and apply > patches > I really don't think push access should be removed from someone inactive, but I also don't think it should be given to someone with zero commits just because their patches never got a response, like with this patch. For such a large and wanted feature, it'll get merged by one of us eventually.
We made some changes in our EVC wrapper implementation and would like to submit new patches to patchwork, but it's still unclear to me how to deal with the MAINTAINERS file. Should I leave the following lines: + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski or should I remove them? We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. -----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne Sent: piątek, 28 października 2022 23:08 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Oct 27, 2022, 18:45 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 01:17:15PM +0200, Lynne wrote: > >> >> >> >> Oct 24, 2022, 18:29 by jamrial@gmail.com: >> >> > On 10/24/2022 12:56 PM, Lynne wrote: >> > >> >> Oct 24, 2022, 09:42 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: >> >> >> >>> - Changelog update >> >>> - MAINTAINERS update >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> >> >>> --- >> >>> Changelog | 3 ++- >> >>> MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ >> >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f >> >>> 100644 >> >>> --- a/Changelog >> >>> +++ b/Changelog >> >>> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: >> >>> - remap_opencl filter >> >>> - added chromakey_cuda filter >> >>> - added bilateral_cuda filter >> >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) >> >>> +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) >> >>> version 5.0: >> >>> @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: >> >>> - anlmf audio filter >> >>> - IMF demuxer (experimental) >> >>> - >> >>> version 4.4: >> >>> - AudioToolbox output device >> >>> - MacCaption demuxer >> >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index >> >>> eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 >> >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> >>> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: >> >>> libvpx* James Zern >> >>> libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer >> >>> libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren >> >>> + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski >> >>> + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski >> >>> libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint >> >>> lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger >> >>> mdec.c Michael Niedermayer >> >>> @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: >> >>> dv.c Roman Shaposhnik >> >>> electronicarts.c Peter Ross >> >>> epafdec.c Paul B Mahol >> >>> + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski >> >>> + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski >> >>> + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski >> >>> ffm* Baptiste Coudurier >> >>> flic.c Mike Melanson >> >>> flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer >> >>> >> >> >> >> Nak, that list is only for those with push access, and no other >> >> changes may be made in the same patch. >> >> >> > >> > No, it's the other way around. Those in this list may be eligible for push access. >> > Being listed here gives them the right to NAK a patch made for a module they maintain, as well as their approval being (ideally) a requirement before making changes to it. >> > >> >> Nope. Michael will give anyone on the list push access. >> > > I have the feeling you dont trust me > if thats the issue, 2 lists will not fix that > I trust you more than others. But in this case, I simply don't understand. > The idea is that each developer who takes care of a bit of the code > base (reviewing patches, approving them, fixing issues, adding > features, ...) has the same rights as others. > That is git write, the list is the MAINAINERs list. > > Its not really true that everyone in that file has write access > because some people where forgotten and never asked, some simply dont > know git well enough, some explicitly said they do not want git write, > some sent a lot of messy patches and gave me pause so i didnt offer it and they also didnt ask. > The list should be pretty close though, these are all exceptions not the rule. > The maintainers list used to be what jamrial said it was - an informal list of those with good knowledge on a piece of code to make a review, independent of whether they had push access or not. This is also how users/casual patch senders treated it as - they added their name if they felt like they would like to be consulted on. The list is always a bit outdated, and that's okay. You started treating it as a formal list of those with commit access, and it's been somewhat chaotic. Users still think it's an informal list, developers still think it's an informal list, only you seem to think it should be more formal. When a user submits a patch, I wonder if they're asking for push access or do they simply want to be consulted on for future patches? More often than not, it's the latter. I think there should be 2 lists, and if someone wants push access, they should just send a patch requesting it directly rather than using the vague maintainer term that no one pays attention to. If someone thinks they should have push access and ask, then they probably need it. The maintainers list could continue to be treated the same way it's been treated. > I fail to see the problem, btw. > A Problem would be if someoe does something that requires to remove > his git write or that requires us to think about "should we close that write account" > (and yes i ignore here cases where core developers dont get along, > thats not a issue for a maintainer/git write list) If we do not hit a > situation where we consider closing an account then IMO we havnt > really had a problem with giving write access out too liberal. > The other side OTOH certainly has occured, people sending patches over > and over again, pinging over and over again and finally the patch is > found to be ok and applied. That would point more toward too little > write permission, or at least not the right person having write > access, or a lack of incentives to review and apply patches > I really don't think push access should be removed from someone inactive, but I also don't think it should be given to someone with zero commits just because their patches never got a response, like with this patch. For such a large and wanted feature, it'll get merged by one of us eventually.
Hi David, On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > Should I leave the following lines: > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > or should I remove them? > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes self-evident from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for example because you're starting your own business or Samsung fires you or Google hires you, or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new codec called "EVC" or stops contributing to this new library "libxeve". Will you, Dawid, still maintain these files? If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) these lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you are not maintaining these files, your company is. > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. This makes no sense: our community is a mish-mash of individuals, each entitled to their own opinion. If we - as a community - can't agree, you can ask for a formal opinion from the technical committee. Ronald
Dec 13, 2022, 13:22 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > We made some changes in our EVC wrapper implementation and would like to > submit new patches to patchwork, but it's still unclear to me how to deal > with the MAINTAINERS file. > > Should I leave the following lines: > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > or should I remove them? > > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. > Get rid of them. Michael has made it clear anyone on the list must have commit rights. I'm not for blocking anyone from having commit rights, but you've made zero contributions to the project so far, and maintaining requires some level of dedication. If you want someone to blame for this, blame Michael. He silently changed to whom he gives out commit rights, without informing anyone, and without even joining any discussions when this question is brought up.
Hi, Thank you for your prompt response. We've removed from the MAINTAINERS file all our records and just submitted new patches to the patchwork. Regardless of the above, I will maintain the code related to the EVC codec as long as I can. Best regards Dawid -----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne Sent: wtorek, 13 grudnia 2022 19:42 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Dec 13, 2022, 13:22 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > We made some changes in our EVC wrapper implementation and would like > to submit new patches to patchwork, but it's still unclear to me how > to deal with the MAINTAINERS file. > > Should I leave the following lines: > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > or should I remove them? > > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. > Get rid of them. Michael has made it clear anyone on the list must have commit rights. I'm not for blocking anyone from having commit rights, but you've made zero contributions to the project so far, I hope it will change soon and maintaining requires some level of dedication. If you want someone to blame for this, blame Michael. He silently changed to whom he gives out commit rights, without informing anyone, and without even joining any discussions when this question is brought up.
Hi, Thank you for your prompt response. Lynne told me that Michael has made it clear that anyone on the list must have commit rights. I don't have commit rights so I removed my records from the MAINTAINERS file. Regardless, I will maintain the code related to the EVC codec as long as I can. Best regards Dawid -----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Ronald S. Bultje Sent: wtorek, 13 grudnia 2022 14:33 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Hi David, On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > Should I leave the following lines: > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > or should I remove them? > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes self-evident from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for example because you're starting your own business or Samsung fires you or Google hires you, or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new codec called "EVC" or stops contributing to this new library "libxeve". Will you, Dawid, still maintain these files? If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) these lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you are not maintaining these files, your company is. > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. This makes no sense: our community is a mish-mash of individuals, each entitled to their own opinion. If we - as a community - can't agree, you can ask for a formal opinion from the technical committee. Ronald
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 08:33:29AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) > /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > Should I leave the following lines: > > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > > > or should I remove them? > > > > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes self-evident > from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for example because > you're starting your own business or Samsung fires you or Google hires you, > or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new codec called "EVC" or stops > contributing to this new library "libxeve". Will you, Dawid, still maintain > these files? > > If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" > & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. > > If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) these > lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you are not > maintaining these files, your company is. > I think for code maintained by a company we still should list a person because persons can be contacted while large companies are sometimes very difficult to contact. maybe Dawid Kozinski (Samsung) or Samsung (Dawid Kozinski) or something like that would specify this better thx [...]
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 07:42:23PM +0100, Lynne wrote: > Dec 13, 2022, 13:22 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > > We made some changes in our EVC wrapper implementation and would like to > > submit new patches to patchwork, but it's still unclear to me how to deal > > with the MAINTAINERS file. > > > > Should I leave the following lines: > > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > > > or should I remove them? > > > > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. > > > > Get rid of them. Michael has made it clear anyone on the list > must have commit rights. I'm not for blocking anyone from having > commit rights, but you've made zero contributions to the project > so far, and maintaining requires some level of dedication. You surely have the right to object to Dawid having commit rights. And i understand your argument why, but that has nothing to do with me or the list. There are people on the MAINTAINERS list who do not have commit rights. for example the developers who i presume are paid by loongson to maintain the mips/loongson code do not currently have commit right. Seems a similar case to me thx [...]
Dec 14, 2022, 22:45 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 07:42:23PM +0100, Lynne wrote: > >> Dec 13, 2022, 13:22 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: >> >> > We made some changes in our EVC wrapper implementation and would like to >> > submit new patches to patchwork, but it's still unclear to me how to deal >> > with the MAINTAINERS file. >> > >> > Should I leave the following lines: >> > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski >> > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski >> > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski >> > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski >> > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski >> > >> > or should I remove them? >> > >> > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. >> > >> >> Get rid of them. Michael has made it clear anyone on the list >> must have commit rights. I'm not for blocking anyone from having >> commit rights, but you've made zero contributions to the project >> so far, and maintaining requires some level of dedication. >> > > You surely have the right to object to Dawid having commit rights. > And i understand your argument why, but that has nothing to do with > me or the list. There are people on the MAINTAINERS list who do not > have commit rights. > for example the developers who i presume are paid by loongson to maintain > the mips/loongson code do not currently have commit right. > Seems a similar case to me > You're making assumptions. You've said that anyone who's on maintainers needs push rights. Then you said that unless someone explicitly asks not to get push rights, they will if they're added to maintainers. Right now, the person hasn't said anything, yet you're assuming he doesn't want push rights. I've sent a patch to list maintainers with push access. Those who'd like push access will have to explicitly request it in a different commit. If that patch is accepted, I have no problem with this patch.
-----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer Sent: środa, 14 grudnia 2022 22:36 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 08:33:29AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) > /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > Should I leave the following lines: > > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > > > or should I remove them? > > > > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes > self-evident from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for > example because you're starting your own business or Samsung fires you > or Google hires you, or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new codec > called "EVC" or stops contributing to this new library "libxeve". Will > you, Dawid, still maintain these files? > > If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" > & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. > > If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) these > lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you are not > maintaining these files, your company is. > I think for code maintained by a company we still should list a person because persons can be contacted while large companies are sometimes very difficult to contact. maybe Dawid Kozinski (Samsung) or Samsung (Dawid Kozinski) or something like that would specify this better thx Hi, To be clear. We are not fighting for the right to push. The write access is not our goal at the moment. We just want to do our contribution to the FFMpeg project and provide support for the EVC codec and the only reason we've added entries to the MAINTENANCE file is to provide the information so others know who to contact about the codec. Yesterday I submitted new patches to the FFMepg patchwork and following what Lynne said I removed our entries from the MAINTENANCE file. However, If I understand you correctly, I shouldn't remove it, I should though leave the information in the file. So now I should restore what I removed. Correct me if I'm wrong cause it's a bit confusing. Anyway, we will restore previously removed information from the MAINTENANCE file, information that points to the person who can handle EVC-related queries, but please take a look at what we have uploaded to the patchwork. Check if it is OK or do we need still to change something else. BR Dawid [...]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:11:28AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > Dec 14, 2022, 22:45 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 07:42:23PM +0100, Lynne wrote: > > > >> Dec 13, 2022, 13:22 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> > >> > We made some changes in our EVC wrapper implementation and would like to > >> > submit new patches to patchwork, but it's still unclear to me how to deal > >> > with the MAINTAINERS file. > >> > > >> > Should I leave the following lines: > >> > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > >> > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > >> > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > >> > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > >> > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > >> > > >> > or should I remove them? > >> > > >> > We are expecting a clear and consistent standpoint on this matter. > >> > > >> > >> Get rid of them. Michael has made it clear anyone on the list > >> must have commit rights. I'm not for blocking anyone from having > >> commit rights, but you've made zero contributions to the project > >> so far, and maintaining requires some level of dedication. > >> > > > > You surely have the right to object to Dawid having commit rights. > > And i understand your argument why, but that has nothing to do with > > me or the list. There are people on the MAINTAINERS list who do not > > have commit rights. > > for example the developers who i presume are paid by loongson to maintain > > the mips/loongson code do not currently have commit right. > > Seems a similar case to me > > > > You're making assumptions. You've said that anyone who's on maintainers > needs push rights. Then you said that unless someone explicitly asks not to > get push rights, they will if they're added to maintainers. Right now, the > person hasn't said anything, yet you're assuming he doesn't want push rights. There are many reasons why someone in MAINTAINERS might have no push access * lack of git knowledge * explicitly asked not to receive git write * messy patches submitted in the past * simply forgotten * a past reason which was not noticed that it no longer is true Once Dawids patches are applied, it will be easy to judge their quality based on the changes which where asked for in the review. One developer objected to Dawid having write access currently. If it was not for that i would tend toward giving Dawid write access if he wants to maintain the code. If he personally wants to maintain it or if he is paid to maintain it doesnt really matter. Whoever maintains code benefits from being able to change said code. thx [...]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:14:40AM +0100, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael > Niedermayer > Sent: środa, 14 grudnia 2022 22:36 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 08:33:29AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) > > /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > Should I leave the following lines: > > > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > > > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > > > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > > > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > > > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > > > > > or should I remove them? > > > > > > > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes > > self-evident from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for > > example because you're starting your own business or Samsung fires you > > or Google hires you, or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new codec > > called "EVC" or stops contributing to this new library "libxeve". Will > > you, Dawid, still maintain these files? > > > > If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" > > & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. > > > > If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) these > > lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you are not > > maintaining these files, your company is. > > > > I think for code maintained by a company we still should list a person > because persons can be contacted while large companies are sometimes very > difficult to contact. > maybe > Dawid Kozinski (Samsung) or Samsung (Dawid Kozinski) or something like that > would specify this better > > thx > > Hi, > To be clear. We are not fighting for the right to push. The write access is > not our goal at the moment. > We just want to do our contribution to the FFMpeg project and provide > support for the EVC codec and the only reason we've added entries to the > MAINTENANCE file is to provide the information so others know who to contact > about the codec. > > Yesterday I submitted new patches to the FFMepg patchwork and following what > Lynne said I removed our entries from the MAINTENANCE file. > > However, If I understand you correctly, I shouldn't remove it, I should > though leave the information in the file. > So now I should restore what I removed. > Correct me if I'm wrong cause it's a bit confusing. I think the entry in some form is fine but I would suggest to leave the entry out until the discussion with Lynne reaches some consensus. And then after (we all mostly agree) add the entry That way everyone can calmly discuss this thx [...]
-----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer Sent: środa, 14 grudnia 2022 22:36 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 08:33:29AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) > /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > Should I leave the following lines: > > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > > > or should I remove them? > > > > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes > self-evident from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for > example because you're starting your own business or Samsung fires you > or Google hires you, or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new codec > called "EVC" or stops contributing to this new library "libxeve". Will > you, Dawid, still maintain these files? > > If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" > & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. > > If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) these > lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you are not > maintaining these files, your company is. > I think for code maintained by a company we still should list a person because persons can be contacted while large companies are sometimes very difficult to contact. maybe Dawid Kozinski (Samsung) or Samsung (Dawid Kozinski) or something like that would specify this better thx DK Since there is no further discussion related to the MAINTAINERS file, I've added "Samsung (Dawid Koziński)" entries next to the EVC codec related files. I've just submitted the newest version of our implementation and waiting for the review or merge. [...]
Hi, It's been almost a month since we submitted our latest changes to the FFmpeg patchwork. I know that EVC implementation isn't the only thing you are working on at the moment but we'd like to do another step forward, toward merging our implementation into the master branch of the FFmpeg repository. The contribution is something that we take seriously so we'd like to finally do some progress. We would like to merge it as soon as it is enough good and it meets the expected quality. Continual synchronization of our changes with the latest FFmpeg changes and splitting our changes into patches is, let's say a painstaking job. It would be much easier to develop and refine the code if we could skip that hard splitting on patches step that we have to do each time we do any, even small change. We know that the new FFmpeg version will be released soon and you may be absorbed and overwhelmed with the work related to the new release. However, we'd be grateful if you found a little time and take a look at our latest changes. Last but not least. Do you have any plans related to including such changes as our EVC implementation in the next release? Regards -----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer Sent: czwartek, 15 grudnia 2022 20:23 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:14:40AM +0100, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > Michael Niedermayer > Sent: środa, 14 grudnia 2022 22:36 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 08:33:29AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:22 AM Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) > > /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > Should I leave the following lines: > > > + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski > > > + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski > > > + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski > > > + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski > > > + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski > > > > > > or should I remove them? > > > > > > > Here's a question for you, and the answer probably becomes > > self-evident from that. If you, Dawid, stop working for Samsung, for > > example because you're starting your own business or Samsung fires > > you or Google hires you, or if Samsung stops sponsoring this new > > codec called "EVC" or stops contributing to this new library > > "libxeve". Will you, Dawid, still maintain these files? > > > > If the answer is yes, then you can shorten these lines ("evc*.[ch]: Dawid" > > & "livxev[ed].c: Dawid") and keep them. > > > > If the answer is no, then I think you should remove (or adjust) > > these lines, since they are (in their current form) inaccurate: you > > are not maintaining these files, your company is. > > > > I think for code maintained by a company we still should list a person > because persons can be contacted while large companies are sometimes > very difficult to contact. > maybe > Dawid Kozinski (Samsung) or Samsung (Dawid Kozinski) or something like > that would specify this better > > thx > > Hi, > To be clear. We are not fighting for the right to push. The write > access is not our goal at the moment. > We just want to do our contribution to the FFMpeg project and provide > support for the EVC codec and the only reason we've added entries to > the MAINTENANCE file is to provide the information so others know who > to contact about the codec. > > Yesterday I submitted new patches to the FFMepg patchwork and > following what Lynne said I removed our entries from the MAINTENANCE file. > > However, If I understand you correctly, I shouldn't remove it, I > should though leave the information in the file. > So now I should restore what I removed. > Correct me if I'm wrong cause it's a bit confusing. I think the entry in some form is fine but I would suggest to leave the entry out until the discussion with Lynne reaches some consensus. And then after (we all mostly agree) add the entry That way everyone can calmly discuss this thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. -- Socrates
Hi On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics wrote: > Hi, > It's been almost a month since we submitted our latest changes to the FFmpeg patchwork. I know that EVC implementation isn't the only thing you are working on at the moment but we'd like to do another step forward, toward merging our implementation into the master branch of the FFmpeg repository. > The contribution is something that we take seriously so we'd like to finally do some progress. > We would like to merge it as soon as it is enough good and it meets the expected quality. Continual synchronization of our changes with the latest FFmpeg changes and splitting our changes into patches is, let's say a painstaking job. It would be much easier to develop and refine the code if we could skip that hard splitting on patches step that we have to do each time we do any, even small change. > We know that the new FFmpeg version will be released soon and you may be absorbed and overwhelmed with the work related to the new release. However, we'd be grateful if you found a little time and take a look at our latest changes. > Last but not least. Do you have any plans related to including such changes as our EVC implementation in the next release? I cannot speak for others but ATM for me its difficult to add this patchset to my todo list. If someone reviews and applies it it could make it in for the release but will anyone, i do not know. What i can say is that if a patch which adds you to MAINTAINERS is applied ping me and ill give you git write (unless there are some new standing objections), and once you have that you can work on this code with less pain. But i will leave applying the MAINTAINERS change to others too as some people seemed not happy anout it and i think in such case its better if a 2nd developer does that PS: Maybe you can troll the people who didnt like your MAINTAINERS addition into reviewing & applying your patchset. Its not an unreasonable request because if you dont have git write someone else has to apply changes thx [...]
Jan 29, 2023, 10:57 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > Hi > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics wrote: > >> Hi, >> It's been almost a month since we submitted our latest changes to the FFmpeg patchwork. I know that EVC implementation isn't the only thing you are working on at the moment but we'd like to do another step forward, toward merging our implementation into the master branch of the FFmpeg repository. >> The contribution is something that we take seriously so we'd like to finally do some progress. >> We would like to merge it as soon as it is enough good and it meets the expected quality. Continual synchronization of our changes with the latest FFmpeg changes and splitting our changes into patches is, let's say a painstaking job. It would be much easier to develop and refine the code if we could skip that hard splitting on patches step that we have to do each time we do any, even small change. >> We know that the new FFmpeg version will be released soon and you may be absorbed and overwhelmed with the work related to the new release. However, we'd be grateful if you found a little time and take a look at our latest changes. >> Last but not least. Do you have any plans related to including such changes as our EVC implementation in the next release? >> > > I cannot speak for others but ATM for me its difficult to add this patchset to my > todo list. If someone reviews and applies it it could make it in for the release > but will anyone, i do not know. > What i can say is that if a patch which adds you to MAINTAINERS is applied ping me > and ill give you git write (unless there are some new standing objections), > and once you have that you can work on this code with less pain. > But i will leave applying the MAINTAINERS change to others too > as some people seemed not happy anout it and i think in such case its better if a 2nd > developer does that > > PS: Maybe you can troll the people who didnt like your MAINTAINERS addition into > reviewing & applying your patchset. Its not an unreasonable request because if > you dont have git write someone else has to apply changes > I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly via a separate list in the maintainers file.
Michael, could you review Lynne's policy change on maintainership? It's essential for us to move EVC case one step forward. -----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne Sent: poniedziałek, 30 stycznia 2023 00:18 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Jan 29, 2023, 10:57 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > Hi > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics wrote: > >> Hi, >> It's been almost a month since we submitted our latest changes to the FFmpeg patchwork. I know that EVC implementation isn't the only thing you are working on at the moment but we'd like to do another step forward, toward merging our implementation into the master branch of the FFmpeg repository. >> The contribution is something that we take seriously so we'd like to finally do some progress. >> We would like to merge it as soon as it is enough good and it meets the expected quality. Continual synchronization of our changes with the latest FFmpeg changes and splitting our changes into patches is, let's say a painstaking job. It would be much easier to develop and refine the code if we could skip that hard splitting on patches step that we have to do each time we do any, even small change. >> We know that the new FFmpeg version will be released soon and you may be absorbed and overwhelmed with the work related to the new release. However, we'd be grateful if you found a little time and take a look at our latest changes. >> Last but not least. Do you have any plans related to including such changes as our EVC implementation in the next release? >> > > I cannot speak for others but ATM for me its difficult to add this > patchset to my todo list. If someone reviews and applies it it could > make it in for the release but will anyone, i do not know. > What i can say is that if a patch which adds you to MAINTAINERS is > applied ping me and ill give you git write (unless there are some new > standing objections), and once you have that you can work on this code with less pain. > But i will leave applying the MAINTAINERS change to others too as some > people seemed not happy anout it and i think in such case its better > if a 2nd developer does that > > PS: Maybe you can troll the people who didnt like your MAINTAINERS > addition into reviewing & applying your patchset. Its not an > unreasonable request because if you dont have git write someone else > has to apply changes > I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly via a separate list in the maintainers file.
Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and the new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see that your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and commented on it. Therefore, can we count on you to review our patchset in your spare time? As I mentioned before, we would like to get moving, make some progress, and get closer to the moment when our patchset is ready to be pushed to the master branch. -----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne Sent: poniedziałek, 30 stycznia 2023 00:18 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Jan 29, 2023, 10:57 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > Hi > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics wrote: > >> Hi, >> It's been almost a month since we submitted our latest changes to the FFmpeg patchwork. I know that EVC implementation isn't the only thing you are working on at the moment but we'd like to do another step forward, toward merging our implementation into the master branch of the FFmpeg repository. >> The contribution is something that we take seriously so we'd like to finally do some progress. >> We would like to merge it as soon as it is enough good and it meets the expected quality. Continual synchronization of our changes with the latest FFmpeg changes and splitting our changes into patches is, let's say a painstaking job. It would be much easier to develop and refine the code if we could skip that hard splitting on patches step that we have to do each time we do any, even small change. >> We know that the new FFmpeg version will be released soon and you may be absorbed and overwhelmed with the work related to the new release. However, we'd be grateful if you found a little time and take a look at our latest changes. >> Last but not least. Do you have any plans related to including such changes as our EVC implementation in the next release? >> > > I cannot speak for others but ATM for me its difficult to add this > patchset to my todo list. If someone reviews and applies it it could > make it in for the release but will anyone, i do not know. > What i can say is that if a patch which adds you to MAINTAINERS is > applied ping me and ill give you git write (unless there are some new > standing objections), and once you have that you can work on this code with less pain. > But i will leave applying the MAINTAINERS change to others too as some > people seemed not happy anout it and i think in such case its better > if a 2nd developer does that > > PS: Maybe you can troll the people who didnt like your MAINTAINERS > addition into reviewing & applying your patchset. Its not an > unreasonable request because if you dont have git write someone else > has to apply changes > I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly via a separate list in the maintainers file.
Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and the new > maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see that your change > has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it appears that the > discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, although both Michael and > other maintainers have reviewed and commented on it. > What do you mean both current and new policy?
-----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne Sent: poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2023 18:32 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and the > new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see that > your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it > appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, > although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and commented on it. > What do you mean both current and new policy? Lynne, you mentioned a new policy change on maintainership in one of the previous emails: "I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly via a separate list in the maintainers file." New Policy ========== Your proposal is for a separate list of developers who have write access to the GIT repository [new policy] (https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/patch/NJIL3BF--3-9@lynne.ee/) Current Policy ============== Currently, the MAINTAINERS file has one list of developers who may or may not have write access. The MAINTAINERS file currently contains one list of developers who may or may not have write access to the GIT. Unfortunately, there are significant discrepancies regarding who should be on this list and what rights they should have: Some ffmpeg maintainers argue that those on the list may not necessarily have write access but may qualify for access to publish changes. Being on this list gives them the right to reject (negative acknowledgement - NAK) a set of changes related to the module they are responsible for and (ideally) requires their approval before making any changes to the module. Others, like Lynne, believe that the list should only exist for those who have write access ("... that list is only for those with push access"). Only developers who have contributed to the project and understand that maintaining a repository requires a certain level of dedication should be included on the list. There are also those who believe that developers who care about a piece of code should have write access if they ask for it. Each developer who takes care of a bit of the code base (reviewing patches, approving them, fixing issues, adding features, ...) has the same rights as others. At the moment, it doesn't matter to us whether there are two lists or one. What matters to us is pushing our patchset containing an EVC codec wrapper to ffmpeg. We want to refine and maintain this code and have the information somewhere about who is responsible for it (EVC) and who to contact with questions. We hope that our patchset will eventually be accepted, and we will then apply for write access to Git because we want to take care of the EVC code. We would like to separate these 2 topics, the mainteiners list and the EVC patch. At this point our patch seems to be in line with the current policy. If anyone has any comments regarding a particular MAINTENANCE file related to our patchset, please make comments. Our EVC patch does not change MAINTENANCE policy.
Feb 14, 2023, 13:10 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne > Sent: poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2023 18:32 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and the >> new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see that >> your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it >> appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, >> although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and commented on >> > it. > >> >> > > What do you mean both current and new policy? > > Lynne, you mentioned a new policy change on maintainership in one of the > previous emails: > "I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you > review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no objection on > who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly via a separate list > in the maintainers file." > Fair enough, I'll just review the patchset while ignoring this patch.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 12:10, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > At the moment, it doesn't matter to us whether there are two lists or one. > What matters to us is pushing our patchset containing an EVC codec wrapper > to ffmpeg. We want to refine and maintain this code and have the > information > somewhere about who is responsible for it (EVC) and who to contact with > questions. We hope that our patchset will eventually be accepted, and we > will then apply for write access to Git because we want to take care of the > EVC code. > I appreciate your sincerity but history shows that patches to third-party libs from corporate contributors are not maintained (as Ronald said). People change jobs, work focus changes etc etc. A good example of this is libyami. Even more so for EVC which has had very limited uptake. Regards, Kieran Kunhya
-----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Kieran Kunhya Sent: wtorek, 14 lutego 2023 19:04 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 12:10, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > At the moment, it doesn't matter to us whether there are two lists or one. > What matters to us is pushing our patchset containing an EVC codec > wrapper to ffmpeg. We want to refine and maintain this code and have > the information somewhere about who is responsible for it (EVC) and > who to contact with questions. We hope that our patchset will > eventually be accepted, and we will then apply for write access to Git > because we want to take care of the EVC code. > I appreciate your sincerity but history shows that patches to third-party libs from corporate contributors are not maintained (as Ronald said). People change jobs, work focus changes etc etc. A good example of this is libyami. Even more so for EVC which has had very limited uptake. Regards, Kieran Kunhya Dear Kieran, While I appreciate your concerns, I must point out that the issues you mentioned regarding the maintenance of third-party libraries are not limited to corporate contributors. People change jobs and their focus may change, but this is not exclusive to those working for corporations. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that someone who has maintained a particular part of code in a project like FFmpeg will abruptly cease doing so upon changing jobs. I believe it's important to consider each individual's level of commitment to a project, rather than making assumptions based on generalizations. It's also worth noting that while there may have been issues with maintaining patches to certain third-party libraries in the past, it doesn't mean that it will be each and every time. Regards Dawid
-----Original Message----- From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne Sent: wtorek, 14 lutego 2023 19:01 To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files Feb 14, 2023, 13:10 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > Lynne > Sent: poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2023 18:32 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and >> the new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see >> that your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it >> appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, >> although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and >> commented on >> > it. > >> >> > > What do you mean both current and new policy? > > Lynne, you mentioned a new policy change on maintainership in one of > the previous emails: > "I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you > review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no > objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly > via a separate list in the maintainers file." > Fair enough, I'll just review the patchset while ignoring this patch. Dear Lynne, Thank you for your response. I really appreciate your willingness to review the patchset, and I I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback. I understand that this patch may present some challenges, since it's a quite big, but I believe that with your guidance, we can finally come up with a solution that meets FFmpeg requirements. Thank you again for taking the time to review the patchset. We will be eagerly awaiting your feedback. Best regards, Dawid _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c6da1d34-a6388069-c6db967b-000babd9f1ba-f1087034b8a00e05&q=1&e=f6840520-ddf5-4d1d-890b-9f658856ac36&u=https%3A%2F%2Fffmpeg.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 08:49, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > Dear Kieran, > > While I appreciate your concerns, I must point out that the issues you > mentioned regarding the maintenance of third-party libraries are not > limited > to corporate contributors. People change jobs and their focus may change, > but this is not exclusive to those working for corporations. Furthermore, > it > is not necessarily the case that someone who has maintained a particular > part of code in a project like FFmpeg will abruptly cease doing so upon > changing jobs. > > I believe it's important to consider each individual's level of commitment > to a project, rather than making assumptions based on generalizations. It's > also worth noting that while there may have been issues with maintaining > patches to certain third-party libraries in the past, it doesn't mean that > it will be each and every time. > > Regards > Dawid > Whilst all of this is true, the community is able to pick up when it's an internal FFmpeg component. When it's a third-party library on another person's Github, the community can't do that. Kieran
> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Kieran > Kunhya > Sent: środa, 15 lutego 2023 14:05 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 08:49, Dawid Kozinski/Multimedia (PLT) /SRPOL/Staff > Engineer/Samsung Electronics <d.kozinski@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Kieran, > > > > While I appreciate your concerns, I must point out that the issues you > > mentioned regarding the maintenance of third-party libraries are not > > limited to corporate contributors. People change jobs and their focus > > may change, but this is not exclusive to those working for > > corporations. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that someone > > who has maintained a particular part of code in a project like FFmpeg > > will abruptly cease doing so upon changing jobs. > > > > I believe it's important to consider each individual's level of > > commitment to a project, rather than making assumptions based on > > generalizations. It's also worth noting that while there may have been > > issues with maintaining patches to certain third-party libraries in > > the past, it doesn't mean that it will be each and every time. > > > > Regards > > Dawid > > > > Whilst all of this is true, the community is able to pick up when it's an internal > FFmpeg component. > When it's a third-party library on another person's Github, the community can't > do that. > > Kieran We understand your concern about the fact that the community may not have the same level of control over third-party libraries outside of the internal FFmpeg components. However, our implementation of the EVC codec is available on GitHub (https://github.com/mpeg5/xeve https://github.com/mpeg5/xevd ) under the BSD license, which means that anyone can review and contribute to the code. Are there no other third-party libraries in the FFMpeg? > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=2f1fcb67-7084f26b-2f1e4028- > 000babff3563-4c32b86914b34023&q=1&e=64a9b64e-ef38-4603-9d17- > 6eaf2a80eb0d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fffmpeg.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fffmp > eg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org > with subject "unsubscribe".
> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne > Sent: wtorek, 14 lutego 2023 19:01 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > Feb 14, 2023, 13:10 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > > Lynne > > Sent: poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2023 18:32 > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > > > Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > > >> Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and > >> the new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see > >> that your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it > >> appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, > >> although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and > >> commented on > >> > > it. > > > >> > >> > > > > What do you mean both current and new policy? > > > > Lynne, you mentioned a new policy change on maintainership in one of > > the previous emails: > > "I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you > > review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no > > objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly > > via a separate list in the maintainers file." > > > > Fair enough, I'll just review the patchset while ignoring this patch. Dear Lynne, I just wanted to timidly remind you that we are still waiting for a review of our code. Please have mercy on us and don't let us wait for ages. We don't want to wait indefinitely, and we would like to move forward with our project. We understand that our patch is not a tiny piece of code, and we know the effort required to review it thoroughly is expected to be rather big. However, we would like to receive some feedback, even if it is just to let us know that currently you are overwhelmed by something else but you still keep it in your mind, and you will review it as soon as you are able. It is a little bit frustrating to wait for weeks without any feedback. Please, try to understand us. We understand that there may be some issues that need to be addressed, and we are willing to work with you to fix any problems and ensure that our code meets all the requirements of the FFmpeg project. If there is something that requires improvement, please let us know so that we can address them. On the other hand, if our code is already satisfactory, we would like to see it included in the FFmpeg repository. We believe that our patches could benefit the FFmpeg community, and we would like to contribute to the project. We appreciate your time and effort, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon. Best regards, DK > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c6da1d34-a6388069-c6db967b- > 000babd9f1ba-f1087034b8a00e05&q=1&e=f6840520-ddf5-4d1d-890b- > 9f658856ac36&u=https%3A%2F%2Fffmpeg.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fffmp > eg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org > with subject "unsubscribe".
Mar 6, 2023, 11:46 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne >> Sent: wtorek, 14 lutego 2023 19:01 >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in >> Changelog and MAINTAINERS files >> >> Feb 14, 2023, 13:10 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: >> >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of >> > Lynne >> > Sent: poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2023 18:32 >> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches >> > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in >> > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files >> > >> > Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: >> > >> >> Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and >> >> the new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see >> >> that your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and it >> >> appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, >> >> although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and >> >> commented on >> >> >> > it. >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > What do you mean both current and new policy? >> > >> > Lynne, you mentioned a new policy change on maintainership in one of >> > the previous emails: >> > "I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if you >> > review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no >> > objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done explicitly >> > via a separate list in the maintainers file." >> > >> >> Fair enough, I'll just review the patchset while ignoring this patch. >> > > Dear Lynne, > > I just wanted to timidly remind you that we are still waiting for a review of our code. > Please have mercy on us and don't let us wait for ages. We don't want to wait indefinitely, and we would like to move forward with our project. > Ping, I sent a review of the patchset more than a week ago, could you look into fixing the issues? Like I said in my review, the issues aren't huge, just some cleanups and timebase/timestamp issues.
> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Lynne > Sent: sobota, 18 marca 2023 18:53 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Cc: 'FFmpeg development discussions and patches' <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > > Mar 6, 2023, 11:46 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > >> Lynne > >> Sent: wtorek, 14 lutego 2023 19:01 > >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > >> <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > >> Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > >> > >> Feb 14, 2023, 13:10 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > >> > Lynne > >> > Sent: poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2023 18:32 > >> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > >> > <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > >> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v14 9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in > >> > Changelog and MAINTAINERS files > >> > > >> > Feb 13, 2023, 10:29 by d.kozinski@samsung.com: > >> > > >> >> Lynne, if it concerns us, we will comply with both the current and > >> >> the new maintainership policy once your patchset is pushed. We see > >> >> that your change has not yet been pushed into the main branch, and > >> >> it appears that the discussion on this topic may still be ongoing, > >> >> although both Michael and other maintainers have reviewed and > >> >> commented on > >> >> > >> > it. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > What do you mean both current and new policy? > >> > > >> > Lynne, you mentioned a new policy change on maintainership in one > >> > of the previous emails: > >> > "I assign myself to personally review the patchset and push it, if > >> > you review my policy change on maintainership. As I said, I have no > >> > objection on who gets maintainership, just that it is done > >> > explicitly via a separate list in the maintainers file." > >> > > >> > >> Fair enough, I'll just review the patchset while ignoring this patch. > >> > > > > Dear Lynne, > > > > I just wanted to timidly remind you that we are still waiting for a review of our > code. > > Please have mercy on us and don't let us wait for ages. We don't want to wait > indefinitely, and we would like to move forward with our project. > > > > Ping, I sent a review of the patchset more than a week ago, could you look into > fixing the issues? > Like I said in my review, the issues aren't huge, just some cleanups and > timebase/timestamp issues. Thank you very much for the review. I will definitely upload new patchset this week. I apologize for the delay in my response, but I found an issue in the code that I had to track down and fix. BTW. The problem turned out to be related to the timestamps you mentioned in your review. I have fixed everything, except for one thing. I'm not entirely sure how should I handle the following request "You should handle avctx->flags & AV_CODEC_FLAG_GLOBAL_HEADER. If that flag is set, you have to set avctx->extradata to (usually, in case of h2645) at least the start SPS unit, or whatever the standard is for containers." Could you please provide me with more information on this? How should I handle the case(when the AV_CODEC_FLAG_GLOBAL_HEADER flag is set for the AVCodecContext? Should I put the content of this NAL unit into FFCodec::extradata if the encoder produces an SPS NAL unit during stream encoding? (In the case when the AV_CODEC_FLAG_GLOBAL_HEADER flag is set for the AVCodecContext the FOO flag is set ofcourse) What is the purpose of doing so? How is FFCodec::extradata used later on? How does the framework know what is inside it?" Thank you for your time Dawid > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=661a13b8-079106a1-661b98f7- > 74fe485cbfec-2bea90a8a418d5f0&q=1&e=3896e17c-e77c-43cf-9daf- > 0d05df9057e1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fffmpeg.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fffmp > eg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org > with subject "unsubscribe".
diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog index ec9de1bd85..19e9ae3b1f 100644 --- a/Changelog +++ b/Changelog @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ version 5.1: - remap_opencl filter - added chromakey_cuda filter - added bilateral_cuda filter +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Encoder (XEVE) +- eXtra-fast Essential Video Decoder (XEVD) version 5.0: @@ -92,7 +94,6 @@ version 5.0: - anlmf audio filter - IMF demuxer (experimental) - version 4.4: - AudioToolbox output device - MacCaption demuxer diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index eebfa5cfb7..df8d8eca73 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ Codecs: libvpx* James Zern libxavs.c Stefan Gehrer libxavs2.c Huiwen Ren + libxevd.c Dawid Kozinski + libxeve.c, Dawid Kozinski libzvbi-teletextdec.c Marton Balint lzo.h, lzo.c Reimar Doeffinger mdec.c Michael Niedermayer @@ -420,6 +422,9 @@ Muxers/Demuxers: dv.c Roman Shaposhnik electronicarts.c Peter Ross epafdec.c Paul B Mahol + evc.c, evc.h Dawid Kozinski + evcdec.c Dawid Kozinski + evc_parser.c Dawid Kozinski ffm* Baptiste Coudurier flic.c Mike Melanson flvdec.c Michael Niedermayer
- Changelog update - MAINTAINERS update Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com> --- Changelog | 3 ++- MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)