[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader

[Alex Converse]

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Baptiste Coudurier
<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/10 6:46 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Baptiste Coudurier
>> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/2/10 3:52 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Baptiste Coudurier
>>>> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/10 2:43 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Baptiste Coudurier
>>>>>> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I believe you are confusing "maintainers" and
>>>>>>> "contributors" here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maintainers of the kernel are paid.
>>>>
>>>> Some are, most are not:
>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> You have to be reasonable and compare what is comparable.
>>> Of course some drivers are maintained by people for fun. How active
>>> is the development on all these drivers ?
>>
>> You are arguing for the sake of arguing
>>
>
> And you are not ?
>
>> this has nothing to do with my original point, but I answered you
>> anyway, I probably shouldn't have.
>
> It has everything to do with your original point.
> You refuse to understand how and why the kernel can sustain the strict
> rules. I'm trying to explain to you, but this is getting hopeless.
>
>>>> We all are doing it on our free time. But fine, if you think
>>>> contributors by definition should receive more pain, then that
>>>> alone answers why git has more contributors than FFmpeg.
>>>
>>> You said that sending patches was great. Why are you now calling
>>> it "pain" ? Or do you implicitly agree with me ?
>>
>> Sending patches is great... if the project has a good culture of
>> reviewing patches. You are the one that is saying sending patches is
>> painful, so I assume there's something wrong with the culture, and
>> my guess based on the comments from others is that that the problem
>> is bike-shedding.
>
> So, following your reasoning, we are actually giving more great time to
> contributors than maintainers ? This is perfect.
>
> Besides, why would there be something wrong about the culture because
> _I_ don't like sending patches ?
> The point is, maintainers are really welcome to send patches if they
> _want_ to, if they don't want to and it's on the code they maintain,
> they are _forced_ to. People can _always_ review on -cvslog and comments
> will always be addressed.
> This is better for maintainers, and IMHO given the situation of FFmpeg,
> it is better for the project.
>
>>> Can you please open your eyes, and realize that the adoption and
>>> usage of git cannot be compared to FFmpeg ?
>>
>> In fact I think more people use FFmeg than git.
>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ffmpeg
>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=git
>
> Well, I don't think using debian users is accurate.
> Furthermore, git the program is installed as much as ffmpeg the program.
> And git will be shipped along Xcode 4.0
>
> libavcodec-dev ? Not that many.
>
> These stats are weird anyway, how come libavformat52 is more installed
> than libavcodec52 since the former depends on the latter, something is
> wrong here.
>
> google trends:
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=git%2C+ffmpeg
>
> See the huge difference ?
>

Google trends are retarded.

I see Daniel Whitney related news attached to the first git spike. And
git is so poplar in Turkey.... SVN must have been caught speaking
Kurdish in public.

...

--Alex