[Ffmpeg-devel-irc] ffmpeg-devel.log.20180611

[burek]

[00:56:21 CEST] <cone-300> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:d13379fb7970: avcodec/wavpack: Fix overflow in adding tail
[00:56:22 CEST] <cone-300> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:c2852e4e00de: avcodec/xwddec: Use ff_set_dimensions()
[00:56:23 CEST] <cone-300> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:8b5559175724: avcodec/h264_mc_template: Only prefetch motion if the list is used.
[00:56:24 CEST] <cone-300> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:b796c5ae9299: avcodec/h264_ps: Move MAX_LOG2_MAX_FRAME_NUM to header so it can be used in h264_sei
[00:56:25 CEST] <cone-300> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:8c20ea8ee0f3: avcodec/h264_slice: Fix overflow in recovery_frame computation
[02:15:01 CEST] <JEEB> umm, is there a reason why the mbedtls TLS back-end doesn't require version3? https://tls.mbed.org/how-to-get
[02:15:12 CEST] <JEEB> apachev2 is (L)GPLv3
[02:15:15 CEST] <JEEB> compatible
[02:22:51 CEST] <jamrial> it should? it's listed in EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_VERSION3_LIST
[02:23:01 CEST] <JEEB> oh
[02:23:07 CEST] <JEEB> getting late :P
[02:23:08 CEST] <JEEB> missed it then
[02:23:49 CEST] <JEEB> yes, now I see it
[02:24:01 CEST] <JEEB> sorry, will go for a shower and fall asleep
[02:30:13 CEST] <jamrial> :p
[12:58:34 CEST] <Yooooooha> I send a patch to ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org, however there is no patch in http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-June/date.html. Could you guys help me with the problem? Great thanks!
[12:59:28 CEST] <Yooooooha> i send the patch with git send-email and there was a response that told me i successed sending the email
[13:00:00 CEST] <nevcairiel> if you're not subscribed its probably in the moderation queue and will be handled as soon as a mod looks at it
[13:01:11 CEST] <Yooooooha> i have subscribed
[13:01:37 CEST] <Yooooooha> And there is no related information in the url http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-June/date.html
[13:03:36 CEST] <Yooooooha> i want to know if i send a patch successfully, will the url present the patch immediately?
[13:03:59 CEST] <Yooooooha> or there should be a dealy?
[13:16:15 CEST] <Yooooooha> i am so sorry that i leaved the channel accidently. so my question is, if i send the patch to ffmepg-devel at ffmpeg.org, should the url represent the patch immediatly? the url is http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-June/date.html
[13:40:17 CEST] <January> That guy didnt state what his email was
[17:25:37 CEST] <BBB> that CoC email response is a little funny
[17:31:07 CEST] <January> BBB: :( whyso
[17:32:02 CEST] <January> Essentially my thoughts were: remove what we have now, so then we're actually doing something because at this point action (whatever it may be) is better than inaction. And then we could look at re-adding it in the future (maybe)
[17:32:12 CEST] <BBB> the history of the CoC addition is (besides it being a total trollwar) basically that derek left the project because of insults leveled at him. in response to that, we added the CoC, but (trollwar) we were not able to agree on an enforcement mechanism so we left that out
[17:32:26 CEST] <BBB> derek now rightfully asserts that without an enforcement mechanism, its not very useful
[17:33:03 CEST] <BBB> so hes basically asking: do you want me back, or do you want me out? and the response is go away, and then the email is (basically) asking him to please commit the CoC-reversion (which will make him re-leave the project) by himself
[17:33:13 CEST] <BBB> thats a little ironic, as alanis morisette would say
[17:33:26 CEST] <January> I'm happy to commit a change
[17:34:06 CEST] <BBB> its not about the chance, its about not seeing the relationship between CoC, CoC enforcement and Dereks presence in this project :)
[17:34:10 CEST] <BBB> thats the ironic part
[17:34:16 CEST] <BBB> s/chance/change/
[17:36:41 CEST] <January> I mean in the end someone just needs to step as the 'community manager' or whatever, right? I mean it feels like that what D404 has done, but he seems to be against it.
[17:37:25 CEST] <January> I'm definitely not the person for it either. (Which I guess is the issue if everyone feels the same).
[17:39:17 CEST] <BBB> I dont think everyone is on-board with having a community manager, but I could be wrong here
[17:40:02 CEST] <January> BBB: well of course not everyone would be on-board with it, that's why you have one.
[17:40:50 CEST] <January> We're trying to resolve the dispute of having someone to resolve disputes without having someone to resolve disputes... essentially.
[17:41:20 CEST] <gnafu> Hehe.
[17:41:56 CEST] <BBB> but the current strategy is to remove the CoC entirely
[17:42:01 CEST] <January> You need _someone_ to 'step-up', but it also does have to be someone that the majority wouldn't object to
[17:42:07 CEST] <January> BBB: yes I think that's the best first step
[17:42:25 CEST] <BBB> to get rid of guns, lets start by getting rid of all gun laws
[17:42:36 CEST] <BBB> (s/../to get rid of gun violence/)
[17:42:42 CEST] <January> it's not enforced, it kinda sucks (it's not written clearly enough for someone to actually enforce it)
[17:43:18 CEST] <January> BBB: well obviously it wouldn't be permanent, it would be a temporary thing to show that it's actually being worked on
[17:47:21 CEST] <BBB> I guess Im not entirely convicned of the strategy here :-p
[17:47:43 CEST] <January> BBB: I mean the other alternative is just to replace it immediately
[17:48:03 CEST] <January> but 'immediately' replacing a CoC is easy like 3 months lol
[17:48:11 CEST] <BBB> if ever
[17:48:16 CEST] <January> exactly
[17:48:26 CEST] <January> BBB: and in this case I think action is better than inaction
[17:48:37 CEST] <January> there's literally no point having the CoC as it is now
[17:50:28 CEST] <gnafu> Without having actually read it, my initial reaction is, /Why not adopt something similar to what VLC has like he proposes?/
[17:50:42 CEST] <gnafu> But is that where you'd need to have an official community manager to make it work?
[17:51:18 CEST] <BBB> the difference between our CoC and videolans CoC is the enforcement
[17:51:23 CEST] <BBB> which is what the whole trollwar was about
[17:52:24 CEST] <January> BBB: and the literal text of our CoC being useless as well. It's not clear and is very opinionated, you know it's gonna be nitpicked to hell and back so you definitely want it to be clear
[17:52:29 CEST] <BBB> videolans CoC is basically dont be a dick, and then if youre a dick like this, youll be banned from irc for a week; if youre a dick like that, youll lose commit access for a week; if youre a dick like such or so, you will not be welcome at the videolan dev days events and other social in-person meetupds
[17:52:39 CEST] <BBB> our CoC is basically dont be a dick
[17:53:08 CEST] <gnafu> BBB: "Or else" with a wagging finger attached to no one, eh?
[17:53:12 CEST] <BBB> so now, derek is saying, that person was a dick like this, but we never defined what a dick is or what would happen if you acted like a dick like this or that
[17:53:27 CEST] <BBB> and thats the problem :)
[17:53:38 CEST] <January> gnafu: pretty much
[17:54:35 CEST] <January> The solution is to have someone designated for community issues, but 'Good Luck' finding someone for that.
[17:55:22 CEST] <gnafu> I mean, I'd do it if someone wanted to sponsor me so I could quit my job and do it full time.
[17:55:28 CEST] <gnafu> *cue '50s laugh track*
[17:55:31 CEST] <iive> Well, that's easy. I can handle enforcement.
[17:55:53 CEST] <iive> however I am quite sure that the people who push for it, would not like me.
[17:59:07 CEST] <January> iive: well it's not like they need to like you
[17:59:17 CEST] <January> you just need to follow the what the CoC says
[17:59:23 CEST] <January> that should be pretty simpl
[17:59:58 CEST] <iive> well, you see, people could look at the same thing and disagree what they see.
[18:00:19 CEST] <January> iive: not if the CoC is clear though?
[18:00:25 CEST] <iive> and this CoC stuff is nothing more than politics and grap for power.
[18:00:51 CEST] <iive> that's why there is no enforcement clause, because when there is, people would start gaming the system in their favor.
[18:00:52 CEST] <January> 'grasp for power' lol
[18:01:03 CEST] <January> like everyone has commit access
[18:01:29 CEST] <January> j-b: what's your experience with videolan's CoC?
[18:01:33 CEST] <iive> the project has already split once, because of political none-sense.
[18:01:57 CEST] <iive> I see a lot of similarities here.
[18:02:33 CEST] <January> iive: I mean libav seems to have different technical goals nowadays
[18:03:44 CEST] <iive> a lot of good people and developers left the projects because of the politics.
[18:04:06 CEST] <January> iive: do you really think it will stop without doing something about it though
[18:04:14 CEST] <iive> stop what?
[18:04:26 CEST] <durandal_1707> lies, lies, and bunch of lies again
[18:04:35 CEST] <January> durandal_1707: what's your opinion on it?
[18:04:59 CEST] <January> iive: disagreements, I mean there will always be disagreements but making a way to resolve them
[18:05:35 CEST] <iive> January, disagreements cannot be avoided, simply because people are different, have different goals and priorities.
[18:05:47 CEST] <January> iive: well yes, but you can resolve them
[18:06:16 CEST] <iive> January, no... that's impossible. not without full core rewrite ;)
[18:06:36 CEST] <iive> the goal is to focus on the code and to avoid politics when possible.
[18:06:53 CEST] <January> but you just said that disagreements cannot be avoided
[18:09:05 CEST] <iive> with code, you can try to have objective measure of what is better and to separate if from the subjective opinions. 
[18:09:35 CEST] <iive> with politics, you can argue indefinitely without getting close to any concrete issue.
[19:01:44 CEST] <durandal_1707> January: we had someone wanted to be "judge"
[19:08:52 CEST] <January> durandal_1707: that sounds a lot worse than 'community manager', judge implies they wont try to work with people
[19:15:28 CEST] <durandal_1707> January: "judge" would set bans according to CoC
[19:40:25 CEST] <j-b> January: very good.
[23:42:10 CEST] <kiloreux> How can I use specific gcc version ?
[23:42:18 CEST] <kiloreux> In order to compile my expression with it.
[00:00:00 CEST] --- Tue Jun 12 2018