[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Several, actually, regarding the QuickTime palette issue in Matroska

[Tomas Härdin]

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 20:30 +0100, Mats Peterson wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 08:27 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> > On 12/16/2015 08:26 PM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> >>> I have said before that I'm not going to dwell into the complexities
> >>> of Git,
> >>> since it feels about as wasteful as programming a GUI in my book. If you
> >>> can't accept the patches in their current format, so be it. Thanks
> >>> for your
> >>> time and understanding.
> >>
> >> We accept git patches here and that's the way people send patches in
> >> thousands of open source projects.
> >> I wouldn't file my taxes written on a post-it note and we wouldn't
> >> accept random patch formats.
> >>
> >> Kieran
> >
> > That's one bad analogy.
> >
> > Mats
> >
> 
> Listen, I shouldn't have to learn Git just to be able to contribute with 
> some patches. It's crazy. But alright then, suit yourself. I guess I'll 
> have to keep patching FFmpeg myself here in the meantime.

You're expecting people to take time away from their lives to review
some patches for a free project. How do you expect this to work if
you're not willing to follow the project's workflow? There's even a
quite reasonable guide on the website [1]. FFmpeg is a complicated
project - not following the established procedure puts needless mental
burden on people who will end up having to maintain your patches.

Besides, learning git pays dividends. Since it's decentralized you can
use it to keep track of projects locally without needing a server, which
is useful for all kinds of things (assuming you believe in version
control).

/Tomas

[1] http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Submitting-patches

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20151216/74aa5b09/attachment.sig>