[FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[James Almer]

On 1/21/2025 12:54 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:04:45PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:39:29 -0600 Marth64 <marth64 at proxyid.net> wrote:
>>> Hello, in the context of a GA member,
>>>
>>> I think there is general interest in modernizing technical tooling
>>> specifically regarding ML/patch workflow vs. integrated git solution.
>>> Both have their merits. I think what we have today is optimized for
>>> some but cumbersome for many. Like shopping for a drill, it is good to
>>> step back from time to time and ensure we have the right tools.
>>>
>>> I think the problem statement of productivity being impacted from
>>> outgrowing the current tooling is different from who is hosting it.
>>>
>>> These are some options I noticed interest in (in no particular order):
>>> - Forgejo
>>> - GitLab
>>> - Mailing List/Patch Workflow (current solution)
>>
>> Since our last discussion at VDD, I have come to prefer Forgejo over GitLab
>> and would be in favor of hosting an instance on ffmpeg.org.
>>
> 
>> What are the current barriers to doing this. Michael, since you said that you
>> are in favor iff the community agrees with it, should we start a GA vote on
>> the matter?
> 
> I would instead of a secret GA vote, maybe wait a few days for discussion
> to settle down and then just ask people on the ML about (yes vs no) (strong vs weak)
> and a short paragraph about a switch to Forgejo

We can always start a Condorcet vote where the requirement is that only 
non-anonymous votes are considered, if you think that will help (Maybe 
it can even be forced to actually cast your vote?). A vote using mail 
replies in a thread with yes/no is hard to follow.

Also, the vote can happen after a thread with replies stating support 
for one or another solution, with optional argumentation if there's 
something to say that hasn't been said already.

> 
> As well as a 2nd question:
> namely on the threshold
> should we switch if we have 51% ? or no strong opposition ? or how to draw
> the line?

Ideally, there would be two votes. One to open the question if we move 
away from ML patches, and then one to choose between Forgejo/Gitlab, if 
the first vote succeeds. But i don't know if people will be ok with that.

> Also, should we switch if we loose some developers by doing so?
> 
> Its possible that will give us a clear consensus already
> If not, taking another look at the comments from people strongly
> opposing in context of yes/no votes in general seems worthy.
> 
> Either way i think if this ends with 45% vs 55% i would feel uneasy
> I would like to see a clear preferrance of the community, something like
> 20% vs 80%.
> 
> I think a simple count of yes/no strong/weak and what threshold people prefer
> seems enough and it seems like "richer" in information.
> If this doesnt work out we can just try again in 3 months and if it fails again
> we can still go for some hard formal vote. And maybe by the time we will have
> cleared up some of the governance disagreements
> 
> 
>>
>> Can Timo set it up and maintain it for us?
> 
> IIUC timo can do it but he should reply himself i think
> 
> thx
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20250121/babb0bf1/attachment.sig>