3 ms·

As you can see many of the other major contributors to ffmpeg are also contributors to libav. This is explained that ffmpeg merges back a lot of libav but not s

by buster 11y ago

As you can see many of the other major contributors to ffmpeg are also contributors to libav. This is explained that ffmpeg merges back a lot of libav but not so much in the other direction. In other words, if this is true and all major contributors except for Michael are in fact libav developers then ffmpeg might have a hard time when Michael leaves. But since Michael alone seems to "outdevelop" all others, ffmpeg comes ahead in terms of features and supported codecs, so people prefer ffmpeg. Since i don't know the ffmpeg APIs or the code quality, i don't know if it is true that ffmpeg has the worse design and development process. If it is true and Michael leaves it sounds like a lot work to take over. On the other hand... i understand that libav was already a fork of ffmpeg.. So some people did take over the code in the past. Just restating what the article says.

gus_massa 11y ago
Perhaps the table is not clear enought. I don't know about the exact members of each group, so I have to guess. I hope nobody get offended if misclassified. Let's put Michael Niedermayer in his own group "A". Clément Bœsch has no commits in libav and 179 in FFmpeg. So I guess he's in the FFmpeg team. Andreas Cadhalpun has 21 in libav and 114 in FFmpeg . So I guess he's in the FFmpeg team. I put all the persons who have more commits in FFmpeg than in libav in the FFmpeg team. Let's call this team "B". The classification is clear, because in all the cases the difference is big. Vittorio Giovara has 294 commits in libav and 294 in FFmpeg. It's a tie! It's more difficult to guess, but I put him in the libav team. (This choice makes the bus factor bigger.) Martin Storsjö has 253 in libav and 252 in FFmpeg. It's also difficult to guess, but I put him in the libav team. I put all the persons who have more commits in libav in FFmpeg in the libav team. Let's call this team "C". Some cases are difficult to classify, but I choose the classification that makes the bus factor bigger. In the table: libav FFmpeg A) 46 1831 B) 37 1071 C) 1074 856 Tot: 1157 3758 Ignoring the group A) and making a lot of assumptions, the table it can be read as The persons in group B wrote 1071 commits for FFmpeg and 37 of them were copied to libav The persons in group C wrote 1074 commits for libav and 856 of them were copied to FFmpeg. The moral is that with the data of the table it's not clear that the group B is much smaller than group C. Only that group A is bigger than both!

by buster 11y ago

gus_massa 11y ago

Perhaps the table is not clear enought. I don't know about the exact members of each group, so I have to guess. I hope nobody get offended if misclassified. Let's put Michael Niedermayer in his own group "A". Clément Bœsch has no commits in libav and 179 in FFmpeg. So I guess he's in the FFmpeg team. Andreas Cadhalpun has 21 in libav and 114 in FFmpeg . So I guess he's in the FFmpeg team. I put all the persons who have more commits in FFmpeg than in libav in the FFmpeg team. Let's call this team "B". The classification is clear, because in all the cases the difference is big. Vittorio Giovara has 294 commits in libav and 294 in FFmpeg. It's a tie! It's more difficult to guess, but I put him in the libav team. (This choice makes the bus factor bigger.) Martin Storsjö has 253 in libav and 252 in FFmpeg. It's also difficult to guess, but I put him in the libav team. I put all the persons who have more commits in libav in FFmpeg in the libav team. Let's call this team "C". Some cases are difficult to classify, but I choose the classification that makes the bus factor bigger. In the table: libav FFmpeg A) 46 1831 B) 37 1071 C) 1074 856 Tot: 1157 3758 Ignoring the group A) and making a lot of assumptions, the table it can be read as The persons in group B wrote 1071 commits for FFmpeg and 37 of them were copied to libav The persons in group C wrote 1074 commits for libav and 856 of them were copied to FFmpeg. The moral is that with the data of the table it's not clear that the group B is much smaller than group C. Only that group A is bigger than both!