Select provider of libav* libraries

[Bálint Réczey]

2015-05-09 22:22 GMT+02:00 Bálint Réczey <balint at balintreczey.hu>:
> Hi IOhannes,
>
> 2015-05-09 21:56 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at umlaeute.mur.at>:
>> On 05/09/2015 04:34 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>>
>>> It might have ended in some spam filter, at least I suspect that's the
>>> reason the mail didn't make it to the list.
>>
>> most mailman mailinglists do not like it, if you have tons of CCs in the
>> mail (after all, mailinglists are there to prevent that kind of behaviour).
>> of course there are exceptions (like your mail in questions), but
>> mailman wouldn't know about that :-)
>>
>>> Probably most have no particular preference either way.
>>
>> "probably most have a strong preference for libav."
>>
>> really, i have absolutely no clue what they prefer, but we should not
>> try to second guess them.
>> if they don't react, then we have to try harder (rather than assume that
>> they will be fine with whatever I prefer).
> " if they don't react, then we don't have to try harder"
> It is maintainers' responsibility to read emails sent to their address
> set in their packages. I have spent enough time on RC bugs and MIA
> cases to have a mental one week timeout on packaging related emails.
>
> It is simple: If you are not there to answer in a week, your possible
> opinion is ignored (unless you are on VAC which has been announced on
> private@).
>
> I don't have infinite time to be spent of unreachable maintainers, but
> if you would like to ask them feel free to ping them again.
I appreciate that you care about people's opinion and I feel the same
generally, but when they don't care about there packages enough to
read related emails why should I care better?

We can reasonably expect that the transition does not cause any
regression, usually only the opposite (ffmpeg -> libav) does.

Cheers,
Balint