[FFmpeg-devel] Accurately describing ffmpeg-cvslog list [was: Re: [PATCH] Refactor Developer Docs, update dev list section (v2)]

[Jim DeLaHunt]

On 2017-11-26 03:42, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:

> 2017-11-26 9:31 GMT+01:00 Jim DeLaHunt <from.ffmpeg-dev at jdlh.com>:
> [...]
>> +
>>   @subheading Subscribe to the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list.
>> -It is important to do this as the diffs of all commits are sent there and
>> -reviewed by all the other developers. Bugs and possible improvements or
>> -general questions regarding commits are discussed there. We expect you to
>> -react if problems with your code are uncovered.
>> +Diffs of all commits are sent to the
>> + at uref{https://lists.ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-cvslog, ffmpeg-cvslog}
>> +mailing list. Some developers read this list to review all code base changes
>> +from all sources. Subscribing to this list is not mandatory, if
>> +all you want to do is submit a patch here and there.
> I am (still) against this change.

OK, what specifically are you against?  More important, what are you in 
favour of?

It's difficult for me to read your mind via email.  Would you please 
read the existing section, "Subscribe to the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing 
list."[1], and give wording which to you describes accurately the 
current reality?

I'll observe that we have already heard other opinions:

  * Paul[2]: "Not at all. To be a contributor, it is not needed to
    subscribe to [ffmpeg-cvslog] list."
  * Timo[3]: "Usually if a discussion comes up the mail from cvslog is
    replied to on [ffmpeg-devel] list, so no actual discussion happens
    on the automatic cvslog list."

I don't have strong feelings on the policy for the -cvslog list, except 
that the current documentation is clearly inaccurate in describing the 
current reality. That is obvious even on a short exposure to the 
community.  "Bugs and possible improvements or general questions 
regarding commits" are /not/ discussed "there", on ffmpeg-cvslog. The 
statement "We expect you to react if problems with your code are 
uncovered." is correct, but more accurately describes behaviour on 
ffmpeg-devel, not ffmpeg-cvslog.

> Sorry, Carl Eugen

It's great that you care.  What wording do you support?

Best regards,
      —Jim DeLaHunt

[1] <http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Documentation_002fOther>
[2] 
<http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/220441.html>
[3] 
<http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/220272.html>

-- 
     --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com     http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
       multilingual websites consultant

       355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada
          Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953