diff mbox series

[FFmpeg-devel,v14,9/9] avcodec/evc: Changes in Changelog and MAINTAINERS files

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

Checks

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

Commit Message

- Changelog update
- MAINTAINERS update

Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozinski@samsung.com>
---
 Changelog   | 3 ++-
 MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Lynne Oct. 24, 2022, 3:56 p.m. UTC | #1
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.
James Almer Oct. 24, 2022, 4:29 p.m. UTC | #2
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.
Lynne Oct. 25, 2022, 11:17 a.m. UTC | #3
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.
Michael Niedermayer Oct. 27, 2022, 4:45 p.m. UTC | #4
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

[...]
Lynne Oct. 28, 2022, 9:08 p.m. UTC | #5
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.
Ronald S. Bultje Dec. 13, 2022, 1:33 p.m. UTC | #7
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
Lynne Dec. 13, 2022, 6:42 p.m. UTC | #8
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
Michael Niedermayer Dec. 14, 2022, 9:36 p.m. UTC | #11
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

[...]
Michael Niedermayer Dec. 14, 2022, 9:45 p.m. UTC | #12
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

[...]
Lynne Dec. 15, 2022, 1:11 a.m. UTC | #13
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

[...]
Michael Niedermayer Dec. 15, 2022, 7:15 p.m. UTC | #15
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

[...]
Michael Niedermayer Dec. 15, 2022, 7:22 p.m. UTC | #16
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
Michael Niedermayer Jan. 29, 2023, 9:57 a.m. UTC | #19
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

[...]
Lynne Jan. 29, 2023, 11:18 p.m. UTC | #20
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.
diff mbox series

Patch

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