[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian



On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:14:47PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
[...]
> > Ive asked [1][2] back then what "policy in place" was broken
> 
> - you tried to commit code that was blatantly below the already lax
> quality requirements (e.g. it contained tabs, it was (and still is) hard
> to read, it contains dubious, aka security-concerning, practices), I
> told you not to commit those as-is and you blatantly ignored me and the
> others against it. I'm referring to the mplayer filters.
> 

Weren't mplayer filters pushed post fork?

> - your interaction with whoever wasn't in full agreement with you was
> horrible, I told you for months in public and private, you seemed to
> agree just to behave in even worse way later. The interactions with Mans
> are probably the best example of this.

Interactions with Måns and everyone else were also pretty terrible, to the
point that he also left Libav in a rage quit (see #libav-devel on
2011/09/17 for related, when he left. Michael was not here). Note that I'm
not saying this is the reason he completely left the project.

> - your interaction with whoever provided infrastructure service was
> horrible[1]. As Attila already stated here[2] and here[3]
> 

AFAICT this has nothing to do with the policy rules in place.

[...]
> > Then i think we should reunite the projects with some common
> > development policy most are happy with.
> 
> Given this email and the PS below doesn't seem that you want to
> collaborate in any productive way.
> 

You do not display evidence of cooperation either since you started
sending mails here.

> > PS: please spare the world of these defamation attempts
> 
> People is free to check, count and sift the mailing list and git history
> and form an informed opinion.
> 

The people being harsh on this thread in regards to Libav were, AFAIK, not
part of the FFmpeg project.

> I'm sick of being depicted as traitorous swine[4] or monkey[5] or
> whichever colorful expression do you use nowadays and even more annoyed
> of having people thinking that must be true since we aren't answering
> back to your outlandish claims.
> 

The "swine" insult was not from Michael, and this is a personal issue
you'll have to deal with the person directly. I'm pretty sure you already
did with your swine shirts. This was also a quote from 2011, aka the date
of the fork, when everyone was pretty tense because of the takeover. Being
insulted because you miss your "stabbing in the back" (I know you love
that expression) is something that might be understandable.

About the "monkey" thing, this is obviously just a remix of the expression
"patch monkey" that was used in the projects since a long time ago:

https://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel-irc/2010-February/000026.html

<elenril> patch monkeys are too lazy

https://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel-irc/2010-May/000104.html

<janneg> any patch monkeys around?

http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-February/102571.html

"And then i remember when chatting with ben that he felt the commiters as
mere patch monkeys who anyone with enough time could join, but from more
chatting with actual members of the commiter team they seem to rather
think they lead ffmpeg now and have actual decission power."

[...]
> - you leeching my work by leveraging git merge daily

Welcome to the wonderful world of Open Source Luca.

>                                                      and presenting
> yourself as more secure by "fixing" fuzz-reports and spamming CVEs.

This is the second time you mention security in this mail. I think it
might be wise to not dig too much on the security side of Libav.
I could for example mention:

http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=commit;h=d6af26c55

> - you putting in FFmpeg pretty much every patch from every branch you
> can come by, including my incomplete work from github (you did for pulse
> and segment with interesting results, hopefully you won't do that again
> anymore).

Yes, with full authorship, because those were requested & needed in
FFmpeg. Also, communication does not work with you (we FFmpeg are
definitely ignored by most of the people on Libav); this means that
obviously we are not going to annoy you for information or status about
your progress. May I remind you that Michael is banned from the
mailing-list, IRC and some of the developers repositories? Why would you
expect him to even try to communicate with you about these contributions?

> - you "contacting" whoever brings patches in Libav. (Keiji was not happy
> to remember you and we got other people quietly asking what to do of it).

The politic of Libav to alienate contributors is also well developed:

10:44:01 < Xeta> Are the repositories for libavformat shared between ffmpeg and libav in any way?
10:44:26 < Xeta> I've nevery really understood the difference
10:44:27 <@lu_zero> Xeta: ffmpeg merges everything we do and then insult us calling us monkeys
10:44:43 < Xeta> Haha, i see
10:44:46 < Xeta> Bastards

Our contributors also received mails from the Libav team. I don't remember
FFmpeg complaining about that.

Anyway, feel free to defend Libav in this thread against the angry users,
but putting all the burden of past mistakes (by both sides) on Michael is
not an answer nor helping anything.

Best regards,

-- 
Clément B.

Attachment: pgpWdskIDOb1f.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: