[MPlayer-cvslog] r26411 - trunk/libmpdemux/demuxer.c

[Aurelien Jacobs]

Uoti Urpala wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 10:58 +0200, Nico Sabbi wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 May 2008 01:10:12 Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > And what do you expect me to do?  With what rationale?  With
> > > legitimacy granted by whom?
> > 
> > 
> > it seems obvious and simple to me: many developers against one
> > asked Uoti's suspension, thus Uoti's account should have been
> 
> You think no one else would be against it? Really? Not even myself?

Do you seriously mean you should be allowed to vote against your
own account revocation ? Funny :-)

> If people counts should decide do you think there should be a vote
> again? Or do really think everyone already treated the posted flames
> as a vote and counting numbers from that would be meaningful?

I think that counting numbers from that is meaningful.
But if you think it's not, feel free to start a vote yourself !

> > suspended with the legitimacy given to you by the overwhelming
> > majority of developers' requests
> 
> Even considering only the posted opinions, if you add just me to the
> public "against" side and then compare what each side has actually
> done for MPlayer during the last year which side do you think has
> done more?

Huh.. I fail to see how relevant this could be !

> I think the suspension requests are in a pretty clear
> minority by that metric.

One can always find a metric which suits his own needs,
whatever the issue is.

> And if you think that's not a fair metric,

Obviously I do.

> it's IMO a much better one than head count to predict which half of a
> project will be successful if people do consider the issue a "my way
> or I quit/fork" one.

Do you think other developers will quit/fork if your account is
revoked ? Or do you think you've done more for mplayer than
every other developers ?

> Even knowing the unusual tastes of some MPlayer developers I did not
> expect those commits to cause such controversy.

You know very well that it's not only about those commits.
It's about your constant refusal to follow commonly accepted rules.
You are even denying that there are some commonly accepted rules.
And you seem to deny that some kind of rules are necessary to
do collaborative work.
This kind of mentality is incompatible with having an svn account.
And this is clearly explained in svn-howto.txt:

  What follows now is a basic introduction to Subversion and some
  MPlayer-specific guidelines. Read it at least once, if you are
  granted commit privileges to the MPlayer project you are expected
  to be familiar with these rules.

Well, the wording may be a bit loose, but this just mean that
accepting an svn account implies accepting written rules. Thus
refusing those rules means you refuse your svn account.

> That someone would use
> them as a reason to seriously demand revoking commit access crosses
> the line from reasonable disagreement to idiocy.

I will refrain responding to insults.

Aurel