[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:48:32PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:52 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: 
> > no, uoti violated the mplayer policy, threatened with commit wars, and
> > ignored an unanimous request from the developers to revert a change.
> > Also there was a vote and a clear majority to close his account if he
> > did not within a time limit, he didnt. Root choose to ignore this.
> 
> I don't quite agree with that description, but rather than discuss that
> again let me ask you this: do you think the result would have been
> better if you had managed to get my account closed? Would MPlayer be in
> a better state now?

yes

First, the fact that root ignored the result of the vote was very damaging
to the image of mplayer.

Second, you are the number one developer whos commits break compilation with
gcc 2.95 (which you are not willing to support even though the other
developers have repeatly rejected to drop gcc 2.95 support)
This causes alot of wasted time for others as they have to fix the code after
nearly every commit you do, the ensuing flames, discussions and
threats do as well. Had you no svn write access it would be a mere single
reply with "doesnt work with gcc 2.95" and the issue would be closed.
(just see the asm patches you posted here on ffmpeg-dev, no flames, 
no wasted time)

Third, you repeatly said you act by your own rules and dont care about
the policy if it differs from what you consider best. Now one can argue
if the policy is good or bad (i consider it quite good) but having a
developer living and acting by his own rules causes serious problems. 
It partly works out as long as its just one person and he is rather inactive.
Where there two with such an attitide things would get really messy.
I dont need to remind you that you openly threatened that you would
revert compilation fixes.


> > I preempted something similar from happening by asking root to close uotis
> > ffmpeg svn account, which root did.
> > 
> > It was not due to a quarrel between me and uoti.
> 
> There was no reason to believe that I would commit anything to FFmpeg,
> and so no reason to "preempt" anything.

Well you ignore the mplayer policy, an unanimous request by the other
developers and so on. Thats evidence enough that you do whatever you like.
Iam sure you would commit to ffmpeg if you could and saw some chance that
you would get away with it.


> 
> It clearly was due to a disagreement over how to do development. How do
> you distinguish between "a quarrel" and something else?

If a large number of developers unanimously ask you to revert something it is
hardly a quarrel.

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I wish the Xiph folks would stop pretending they've got something they
do not.  Somehow I fear this will remain a wish. -- M?ns Rullg?rd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080128/6a420d9a/attachment.pgp>