[jitsi-dev] jitsi videobridge (Boris Grozev)


#1

Boris Grozev wrote:

> We do have video recording support on videobridge, but it isn't actively
used and may not be of good enough quality. In the long term it will be
replaced by something like jibri[0].

I fail to see the video recording part while running jitsi videobridge, but
gonna check again.
How can I activate it? Do I have to? Audio recording works correctly, have
bunch of recorded mp3s. Same happens on linux and on windows as well,
thought it could be native part diff.

Thank You, Jibri could be a huge source, while it's for jitsi meet (not
sure how it would complicate things), and need dedicated instance or
machine, still it's more than excellent for investigations.

Just another thing: I have to prepare a version/solution where one
participant wouldn't be able to send anything (a fixed xmpp user.at the
openfire server running on ubuntu, no mic/cam) And I have to record
everything that comes from the other participant, the caller. Is this
possible? Trying to hack the system, so far no luck, fails/exceptions.
The base must be simple jitsi videobridge, don't ask the reason (=no clue),
cannot be even jitsi meet.

Thanks,
  Stewe

···

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:03 PM, <dev-request@jitsi.org> wrote:

Send dev mailing list submissions to
        dev@jitsi.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        dev-request@jitsi.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        dev-owner@jitsi.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of dev digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: jitsi videobridge (Boris Grozev)
   2. Re: protected branches and mandatory peer reviews
      (Danny van Heumen)
   3. Re: [libjitsi] Sets a capacity of 100 to the
      LinkedBlockingQueue-s used to hold obje… (#76) (bgrozev)
   4. Re: [libjitsi] Makes the RTP scheduling logic in the
      RtpdumpStream reusable. (#92) (bgrozev)
   5. Re: protected branches and mandatory peer reviews (George Politis)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:40:37 -0600
From: Boris Grozev <boris@jitsi.org>
To: Jitsi Developers <dev@jitsi.org>
Subject: Re: [jitsi-dev] jitsi videobridge
Message-ID: <56D49EB5.7040908@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 29/02/16 10:36, Istvan Lorinc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've been trying to reach someone with the right knowledge/expertise.
> Finally I've found the jitsi dev mailing list.
> Could you please give me a hint, or point me to the right direction?
>
> Regarding jitsi videobridge, how to record video streams to a file on
> server?
> There have been investigations...
> - jirecon, it's for jitsi meet, need for vanilla jitsi videobridge.
> Principal is the same.
> - simply catching the streams, and making the video with ffmpeg f.e.
> - hacking/extending jitsi videobridge to support video recording (audio
> recording is supported, video ain't)

We do have video recording support on videobridge, but it isn't actively
used and may not be of good enough quality. In the long term it will be
replaced by something like jibri[0].

Regards,
Boris

[0] https://github.com/jitsi/jibri

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:50:17 +0100
From: Danny van Heumen <danny@dannyvanheumen.nl>
To: Jitsi Developers <dev@jitsi.org>
Subject: Re: [jitsi-dev] protected branches and mandatory peer reviews
Message-ID: <56D4A0F9.80803@dannyvanheumen.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi all,

Just wanted to check with this topic for otr4j, as we never really
talked about that project specifically.

I would prefer protecting otr4j as well, if it isn't already.

Furthermore, see in line ...

On 18-02-16 03:23, Emil Ivov wrote:
> On 17.02.16 г. 16:02, Ingo Bauersachs wrote:
>>> So, while talking to different people there seems to be a rough
>>> consensus around the fact that we would benefit if we made
>>> peer-reviews an almost mandatory part of our process.
>>>
>>> There are *maaany* different opinions about exactly how we should
>>> do this so I am going to abuse my dictator position a bit and
>>> kickstart the process.
>>>
>>> In an hour, I will go and enable the protected branches feature on
>>> Meet, libjitsi, JVB, Jicofo and Jigasi (and maybe something else if
>>> I feel so inclined :wink: ).
>>
>> How is that formally going to work? There are no status checks on the
>> branches/pull requests (at least not for libjitsi). So all a
>> protected branch on Github will do is preventing a force-push to or
>> deletion of master (which hasn't been an issue so far). Anyone with
>> write access will still be able to push (or merge) without following
>> the rules.
>
> Eeer ... yes ... apparently you are right and I had misunderstood the
> protected branches feature.
>
> Ah well ... so it sounds like this would have to be a policy for now.

Maybe I missed it, but what would the workflow look like? Prepare pull
request and wait for approval? (Assign to someone in advance? .. in case
of otr4j, that would probably be @gpolitis :P)

Kind regards,
Danny

> [...]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <
http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160229/b6e2f8ea/attachment-0001.sig
>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:52:34 -0800
From: bgrozev <notifications@github.com>
To: jitsi/libjitsi <libjitsi@noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [jitsi-dev] [libjitsi] Sets a capacity of 100 to the
        LinkedBlockingQueue-s used to hold obje… (#76)
Message-ID: <jitsi/libjitsi/pull/76/c190354387@github.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Rebased. Also included Paul's suggestion.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/libjitsi/pull/76#issuecomment-190354387
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160229/104c0dd4/attachment-0001.html
>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:53:17 -0800
From: bgrozev <notifications@github.com>
To: jitsi/libjitsi <libjitsi@noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [jitsi-dev] [libjitsi] Makes the RTP scheduling logic in
        the RtpdumpStream reusable. (#92)
Message-ID: <jitsi/libjitsi/pull/92/issue_event/571717396@github.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Merged #92.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/libjitsi/pull/92#event-571717396
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160229/33600e9a/attachment-0001.html
>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:00:54 -0600
From: George Politis <gp@jitsi.org>
To: Jitsi Developers <dev@jitsi.org>
Subject: Re: [jitsi-dev] protected branches and mandatory peer reviews
Message-ID:
        <CAKturxkh37ckj7hRA=
yLJ-jCZ9izN-PB_Xdf0b4Wis0ZzR16Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Danny,

Thank you for bringing this up! I just enabled branch protection for otr4j
master. As for mandatory PRs (as in Peer Review and Pull Request), it's
already supposed to work this way and it's stated in the "contributing"
section of the readme.md.

Best,
George

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Danny van Heumen <danny@dannyvanheumen.nl > > > wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just wanted to check with this topic for otr4j, as we never really
> talked about that project specifically.
>
> I would prefer protecting otr4j as well, if it isn't already.
>
> Furthermore, see in line ...
>
> On 18-02-16 03:23, Emil Ivov wrote:
> > On 17.02.16 г. 16:02, Ingo Bauersachs wrote:
> >>> So, while talking to different people there seems to be a rough
> >>> consensus around the fact that we would benefit if we made
> >>> peer-reviews an almost mandatory part of our process.
> >>>
> >>> There are *maaany* different opinions about exactly how we should
> >>> do this so I am going to abuse my dictator position a bit and
> >>> kickstart the process.
> >>>
> >>> In an hour, I will go and enable the protected branches feature on
> >>> Meet, libjitsi, JVB, Jicofo and Jigasi (and maybe something else if
> >>> I feel so inclined :wink: ).
> >>
> >> How is that formally going to work? There are no status checks on the
> >> branches/pull requests (at least not for libjitsi). So all a
> >> protected branch on Github will do is preventing a force-push to or
> >> deletion of master (which hasn't been an issue so far). Anyone with
> >> write access will still be able to push (or merge) without following
> >> the rules.
> >
> > Eeer ... yes ... apparently you are right and I had misunderstood the
> > protected branches feature.
> >
> > Ah well ... so it sounds like this would have to be a policy for now.
>
> Maybe I missed it, but what would the workflow look like? Prepare pull
> request and wait for approval? (Assign to someone in advance? .. in case
> of otr4j, that would probably be @gpolitis :P)
>
> Kind regards,
> Danny
>
>
> > [...]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@jitsi.org
> Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
> http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160229/78e34245/attachment.html
>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

------------------------------

End of dev Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122
************************************