[FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Michael Niedermayer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 3:38 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:56:09AM +0000, Soft Works wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > > Michael Niedermayer
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 2:26 AM
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> > > devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling
> >
> >
> > > I dont know why the options are exclusive. One can add a Forgejo
> on
> > > ffmpeg.org
> > > but leave the Mailing List/Patch Workflow in place for cases
> where
> > > the
> > > maintainer or patch author prefers a ML workflow.
> >
> > How is that supposed to work when the contributor is submitting to
> Forgejo (or whatever) and the maintainer uses the ML?
> 
> ATM we have contributors who would hapily submit to either and some
> that only
> would submit to one type.
> Same for maintainers.
> that makes 9 combined cases (ML, ANY, WEB) x (ML, ANY, WEB)
> Currently 4 of these 9 cases work
> 
> with what i suggest, 7 of 9 would work

Ah, I got you now. This would mean that one part of patches will never go through the ML and another part will never be seen on "WEB". I hadn't even considered that as a possible/acceptable way, but I wouldn't mind.


> > But this is still limited as it doesn't send PR comments back to
> the ML and it doesn't support mirroring patchsets from the ML back to
> GitHub and comments from GitHub back to the ML.
> 
> cant chatgpt be made to synchronize comments between mailing list and
> the web?

Not unrealistic. The actual process of sending is not the issue, the developers of GGG are hesitant because e-mail conversations are hierarchical and GitHub conversations linear, so unless a message includes a quote from an earlier message it's hard to determine to which ML message the post should be sent as response to.


> if we have Forgejo + ML we can still decide to drop one later and use
> only
> one.
> 
> THis was just a suggestion that seemed easier to agree with for
> everyone
> than a hard switch vs not switch.

It can go without discussion, that's a huge plus indeed :-)

sw