[FFmpeg-devel] maintainer duties (was: Re: [PATCH] fix speex sample)

[Diego Biurrun]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:48:36PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:01:36PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:45:41PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:28:19PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:38:48PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:26:56PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:15:01PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think maintainers should (in descending order of priorities)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1) review patches,
> > > > > > > 2) fix bugs and
> > > > > > > 3) implement missing features
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > One thing I forgot:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 0) Keep their code working and current.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I mean things like exchanging deprecated functions for their
> > > > > > replacements etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > yes, let me just add that all the
> > > > > 0..3 have their easy, hard and insanely hard to implement cases
> > > > > 
> > > > > and in the case of replacing old by new, if a single developer doesnt have
> > > > > the resources to replace all instances by the new there are only 2 choices
> > > > > left
> > > > > A. do nothing, new code still will then use the old system
> > > > > B. add the new and replace what can be replaced with the available resources
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think B is pretty much universally better
> > > > 
> > > > Replacing one function by another is not an insane amount of work, far
> > > > from it.  On second thought, the burden should probably be on the person
> > > > implementing the replacement.  We should not have deprecated cruft in the
> > > > codebase.
> > > 
> > > Was there a function i deprecated but did not replace where a trivial
> > > search and replace was sufficient?
> > 
> > Did any of them require considerable amounts of work?  I don't think so.
> 
> let me repeat my question, what are you talking about?
> Its very obvious you dont want the issues (if they even exist) fixed
> because otherwise you would have pointed to them by now

I have already pointed the functions out:

http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/065629.html

Remaining deprecated functions are AVPaletteControl and ff_realloc_static,
the latter is only used once even...

Diego