Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC PATCH v6] virtio-video: Add virtio video device specification

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

>>> I also hope to be able to update virtio-video at a faster pace. Please
>>> let me try.
>>
>> Please hold on a bit - there are two things here.
>>
>> 1) I'd like to settle the virtio-v4l2/virtio-video argument first to
>> make sure we don't get two things clashing head-on. As far as codecs
>> are concerned we certainly don't need both. Cornelia, I think we'll
>> need you to make a call on this, or at least tell us what you need to
>> make the call. If it helps I can send a draft of what the virtio-v4l2
>> spec would look like, it should be relatively short.
>>
>> 2) I (and other ChromeOS contributors) have been driving this spec so
>> far and while I think virtio-v4l2 is a better solution, I have not
>> said I would give up on virtio-video if virtio-v4l2 was not adopted
>> and will keep iterating on it in that case.
>
> It actually very much looks like you gave up. I mean, you developed it
> for years, and now you'd like to throw it away. Well, I meant something
> like "please have some faith in my ability to update virtio-video at a
> faster pace". I think I already have the permission to continue the
> development. You know, OpenSynergy also spent some time on the
> virtio-video. This includes the draft v1 version and the V4L2 driver. I
> think this was kind of an informal agreement between us, that you do the
> spec and we do the driver. It didn't work well enough since draft v4, I
> think. Now as our interests are not aligned anymore, it is fine to
> continue separately. I'm not going to wait until you change your mind on
> virtio-v4l2. Obviously you're very busy with it right now. If I stop and
> wait now, we won't have the video device in the 1.3 release for sure. I
> think when we are ready to develop virtio-video together again, we'll
> need a better agreement.

Please, can we just calm down here? This thread is painful to read
already, and pointing at each other is not going to help us to come up
with something that is generally agreeable. In the end, I want _a_ spec,
and I don't really have a horse in V4L2 vs. video race, but having to
dig through all of this in the hope of moderating things is just
impossible if you're arguing in circles, and much of it seemingly being
a rehashing about who said/did something or not.

> That said, I very much appreciate your efforts with the spec. It
> definitely received a lot of improvements.