[FFmpeg-devel] Regarding Git Tooling

[Niklas Haas]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:48:01 +0100 Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> Hi James
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 01:22:52PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > 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.
>
> we can force non anonymous voting, this isnt the main concern
>
>
> >
> > 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.

I am in favor of Frank's suggestion above to defer the formal vote until
*after* the trial period.

> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> that can be done too or a condorcet of gitlab/Forgejo/ML patches can be done
>
> my concern is that the community is not just 49 people.
>
> and before people attack me. the choice of Forgejo/gitlab/git send email affects
> many more than 49 people. Every person submiting a patch or contribution is
> affected. In fact everyone on ffmpeg-devel is bascially

I conjecture that the vast majority of occasional and drive-by contributors
either would not care what platform we use, or will actively prefer a web-based
forge.

In either case, I don't think we need to worry too much about the opinions of
anybody other than active contributors and core maintainers, for which the GA
is a sufficient proxy.

>
> thx
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Avoid a single point of failure, be that a person or equipment.
> _______________________________________________
> 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".