User talk:Compn - Revision history

Compn: remove old

2017-01-08T23:39:41Z

remove old

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 8 January 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==Libav and ffmpeg situation==~~		a wild compn appeared, he used harden! you lost 20 XP.
	~~my view of the current libav vs ffmpeg situation. august 2014.~~

	~~the problems in reuniting our projects are many including technical and personal reasons. here i will attempt to list the problems , maybe someone can solve them?~~

	~~this is just my idea of the problems in the projects. i could be 100% wrong. i am not speaking as represenative of anyone else but myself.~~

	~~#some devs will not work together.~~
	~~##some of these devs have already left (mans, baptiste). more may leave if the projects are merged.~~
	~~#some devs will work together but not on any servers controlled by the other group.~~
	~~##has to be neutral 3rd party ground.~~
	~~##this also probably means that the admin with the final say in arguments has to be 3rd party as well.~~
	~~#libav and ffmpeg commit rights and developer rules differ.~~
	~~##in libav its maintainers who are able to commit and in ffmpeg its all contributors (of whom have figured out how to use git).~~

	~~===things the projects are doing to help reunite===~~
	~~#ffmpeg has opened commit write access to all contributors and has offered any dev to work on #ffmpeg. no contributors or developers are banned.~~
	~~#libav has offered for any developer to work on libav~~, ~~including michael nidermayer. michael is currently banned from the libav mailing list and irc channel, so libav is asking someone to submit patches from michael for inclusion into libav.~~

	~~===arguments against reuniting===~~
	~~the projects have been more productive, less fighting/trolling and have better morale.~~ you ~~dont see a patch thats been rejected and fixed 47 times on either mailing list now. with relaxed commits in ffmpeg, ffmpeg has been able to merge new features at amazing speed.~~

	this increased speed has encouraged more developers to contribute to the projects. as well as include ffmpeg in more toolchains because changes could be applied quickly. this is also the case with corporate or professional contributions such as MIPS, google, nvidia, mozilla and more who have contributed code. some of this professional code was written years ago and some was even rejected previously.

	~~different projects with different goals.~~

	~~libav and ffmpeg may have different goals~~. ~~is ffmpeg's goal to be the fastest and support the most formats and feathres? is libav's goal to have clean code without hacks and to fix old api because of design restraints and limitations?~~

Compn: maybe not such good ideas.

2014-08-11T17:12:49Z

maybe not such good ideas.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, 11 August 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	#libav and ffmpeg commit rights and developer rules differ.		#libav and ffmpeg commit rights and developer rules differ.
	##in libav its maintainers who are able to commit and in ffmpeg its all contributors (of whom have figured out how to use git).		##in libav its maintainers who are able to commit and in ffmpeg its all contributors (of whom have figured out how to use git).

	~~===ideas for reuniting projects===~~
	~~#corporate/sponsored (google/facebook etc) takeover of the project. with a group of developers committed to working on lav* full time.~~
	##with full time employees working on the project, they could take over a lot of administrative tasks, thus freeing developers up from being public relation, upstream / downstream packagers, bug testers etc.

	or
	~~#a combined fork of ffmpeg and libav. combining the best parts of both projects. forcing developers from both projects to join the more successful third fork.~~
	~~##a combined unified codebase would entice software packages to use it for more stable api.~~

	===things the projects are doing to help reunite===		===things the projects are doing to help reunite===
	#ffmpeg has opened commit write access to all contributors and has offered any dev to work on #ffmpeg. no contributors or developers are banned.		#ffmpeg has opened commit write access to all contributors and has offered any dev to work on #ffmpeg. no contributors or developers are banned.
	#libav has offered for any developer to work on libav, including michael nidermayer. michael is currently banned from the libav mailing list and irc channel, so libav is asking someone to submit patches from michael for inclusion into libav.		#libav has offered for any developer to work on libav, including michael nidermayer. michael is currently banned from the libav mailing list and irc channel, so libav is asking someone to submit patches from michael for inclusion into libav.

	~~===things you can do to help reunite===~~
	~~#act as patch liason between the projects.~~
	~~##some developers in both projects have refused to even talk to each other. you will have to take git commits and test compile them against libav.~~
	~~##since ffmpeg is merging a lot of commits from libav, most of this job is going to be sending commit patches from ffmpeg to the libav mailing list.~~

	~~#work out api or other code differences between the projects. the code differs in a few places, patches to unify the code may help.~~

	===arguments against reuniting===		===arguments against reuniting===

Compn at 03:25, 11 August 2014

2014-08-11T03:25:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 10 August 2014
Line 19:		Line 19:

	or		or
	#a combined fork of ffmpeg and libav. combining the best parts of both projects. forcing developers from both projects to join the more successful ~~project~~.		#a combined fork of ffmpeg and libav. combining the best parts of both projects. forcing developers from both projects to join the more successful third fork.
	##a combined unified codebase would entice software packages to use it for more stable api.		##a combined unified codebase would entice software packages to use it for more stable api.

Line 30:		Line 30:
	##some developers in both projects have refused to even talk to each other. you will have to take git commits and test compile them against libav.		##some developers in both projects have refused to even talk to each other. you will have to take git commits and test compile them against libav.
	##since ffmpeg is merging a lot of commits from libav, most of this job is going to be sending commit patches from ffmpeg to the libav mailing list.		##since ffmpeg is merging a lot of commits from libav, most of this job is going to be sending commit patches from ffmpeg to the libav mailing list.

			#work out api or other code differences between the projects. the code differs in a few places, patches to unify the code may help.

			===arguments against reuniting===
			the projects have been more productive, less fighting/trolling and have better morale. you dont see a patch thats been rejected and fixed 47 times on either mailing list now. with relaxed commits in ffmpeg, ffmpeg has been able to merge new features at amazing speed.

			this increased speed has encouraged more developers to contribute to the projects. as well as include ffmpeg in more toolchains because changes could be applied quickly. this is also the case with corporate or professional contributions such as MIPS, google, nvidia, mozilla and more who have contributed code. some of this professional code was written years ago and some was even rejected previously.

			different projects with different goals.

			libav and ffmpeg may have different goals. is ffmpeg's goal to be the fastest and support the most formats and feathres? is libav's goal to have clean code without hacks and to fix old api because of design restraints and limitations?

Compn at 03:00, 11 August 2014

2014-08-11T03:00:12Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Did you end up getting the airbus stock you were after in early 2005? [[User:MovieMan|MovieMan]] 00:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
+==Libav and ffmpeg situation==
-:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme...  --[[User:Compn|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
+the problems in reuniting our projects are many including technical and personal reasons. here i will attempt to list the problems , maybe someone can solve them?
-::The parent company of airbus is EADS http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA:EAD. I was simply curious whether you are the same Compn I have seen before elsewhere. [[User:MovieMan|MovieMan]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::i'm the one and only compn, just i didnt get to buy the stock i wanted. i think it was a split of EADS and BAE , or at least it was. maybe i have old information . [[User:Compn|Compn]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
+this is just my idea of the problems in the projects. i could be 100% wrong. i am not speaking as represenative of anyone else but myself.

Compn at 21:16, 14 March 2007

2007-03-14T21:16:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 14 March 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)		:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
	::The parent company of airbus is EADS http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA:EAD. I was simply curious whether you are the same Compn I have seen before elsewhere. [[User:MovieMan\|MovieMan]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)		::The parent company of airbus is EADS http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA:EAD. I was simply curious whether you are the same Compn I have seen before elsewhere. [[User:MovieMan\|MovieMan]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
			:::i'm the one and only compn, just i didnt get to buy the stock i wanted. i think it was a split of EADS and BAE , or at least it was. maybe i have old information . [[User:Compn\|Compn]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

MovieMan at 20:30, 14 March 2007

2007-03-14T20:30:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 14 March 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)		:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
	::The parent company of airbus is EADS [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA:EAD]. I was simply curious whether you are the same Compn I have seen before elsewhere.		::The parent company of airbus is EADS http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA:EAD. I was simply curious whether you are the same Compn I have seen before elsewhere. [[User:MovieMan\|MovieMan]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

MovieMan at 20:30, 14 March 2007

2007-03-14T20:30:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 14 March 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)		:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
			::The parent company of airbus is EADS [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA:EAD]. I was simply curious whether you are the same Compn I have seen before elsewhere.

Compn at 14:44, 14 March 2007

2007-03-14T14:44:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:44, 14 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Did you end up getting the airbus stock you were after in early 2005? [[User:MovieMan\|MovieMan]] 00:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)		Did you end up getting the airbus stock you were after in early 2005? [[User:MovieMan\|MovieMan]] 00:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

			:No, I did not. I did learn that my stock broker is less than helpful. Maybe its a good thing? A few countries made Airbus orders then cancelled them. Boeing's stock is doing great... http://finance.google.com/finance?q=BA as well as BAE Systems (which used to or still owns a bunch of airbus) [http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON%3ABA.] IMO, the stock market is just a big lottery scheme... --[[User:Compn\|Compn]] 10:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

MovieMan: Have we met?

2007-03-14T04:45:31Z

Have we met?

New page

Did you end up getting the airbus stock you were after in early 2005? [[User:MovieMan|MovieMan]] 00:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)