3 ms·
> This is mostly a political issue. Let us not forget the reasons for libav. The ffmpeg development process was having a lot of problems due to very controvers
by jordigh 11y ago
> This is mostly a political issue.
Let us not forget the reasons for libav. The ffmpeg development process was having a lot of problems due to very controversial decisions that its lead dev was taking. The libav fork has resulted in a restructuring of the ffmpeg development workflow. In this regard, libav is about as important as egcs was to gcc.
Further reading:
http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339 http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=339
- davidgerard 11y ago> very controversial decisions that its lead dev was taking I have seen this claim frequently, but have never seen an actual list of such (and that link doesn't supply one). I get they didn't like the guy, but what were the terrible things he was supposed to have done?
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoIt's interesting to note the parallel, but there are a few differences between ecgs vs gcc and libav vs ffmpeg. Perhaps the most important is that the ecgs fork announcement [1] was very diplomatically worded, intended to put an end to any bad feelings on either side, and recognized that FSF was completely in their right to be conservative when it came to developing gcc. Another difference is that ecgs really took off and eventually became the official gcc; libav doesn't look like it's doing the same. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/news/announcement.html http://gcc.gnu.org/news/announcement.html