undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbawolff4mo ago0 comments

I mean, i agree, ffmpeg are under no obligation to do anything. (In the heat of the moment i think my previous comment went too far, i would phrase it more, as if you want to be a "quality" software project then you have to respond to real security bugs promptly).

My biggest gripe though is that ffmpeg does seem to value these sorts of reports highly. If i'm reading the timestamps right, they fixed this report within 1 day: https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/c41a70b6bb79707e1e3a...

How often do you get your bug reports fixed that fast? When i file bugs in open source projects it usually takes at least weeks if im lucky to get a response. People almost never respond within 1 day. I think that demonstrates how valuable ffmpeg views these reports.

If the report was a garbage report (like e.g. the ones the curl maintainer complains about) i'd have more sympathy, but clearly ffmpeg views this issue submission as valuable. The whole thing makes me think of choosing-beggars. They want the google report but also are trying to use social pressure to make google contribute even more.

If they didn't want google's reports that's one thing - just reject them, but both wanting them while also demanding more is scummy in my opinion. Either accept or reject them.

0 comments

eipi10_hn4mo ago

Nope. Don't mistake a quick fix as they are "valuable" to the maintainers. They said clearly that it's a hobby project and at the most it just simply means that some volunteers were interested and wanted to fix it, or the fix is not complex, and I would just stop at that. The "valuable" is, again, an outsider view that is forced to the maintainers. Same as "They want google report" thing. Just because they fix some issues reported from someones doesn't mean that they view all of those reports being "valuable".

At most, I would just see that they are annoyed by the issue procedures (without PRs) of the "researchers" and they complaint on the social. I don't agree with their complaints because the "researchers" did nothing wrong either. And that's it, I would stop at that. Putting the whole "duty", "valuable reports" and "demand more" on them is just as bs as their complaints.

bawolffOP4mo ago

> volunteers were interested and wanted to fix

If that's not the definition of valuable then what is?

As you said, its a volunteer project. What other metric of value is there other than a volunteer being interested?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse