[FFmpeg-cvslog] r9952 - trunk/doc/faq.texi

[Víctor Paesa]

Hi,

On 8/6/07, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 01:30:20PM +0200, V?ctor Paesa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/6/07, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 11:51:13PM +0200, V?ctor Paesa wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > --- trunk/doc/faq.texi  (original)
> > > > > +++ trunk/doc/faq.texi  Sun Aug  5 22:44:37 2007
> > > > > @@ -311,6 +311,10 @@ rm temp[12].[av] all.[av]
> > > > >
> > > > >  yes, (@url{http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.user})
> > > > >
> > > > > + at section what is thread hijacking?
> > > > > +
> > > > > +see (@url{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_hijacking})
> > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > >  @chapter Development
> > > >
> > > > Looks redundant,
> > >
> > > well then why do so many people do it none the less on ffmpeg-user?
> >
> > Maybe because they can't read, and hence I doubt they will read this FAQ entry
> > (or any other) ;-)
>
> that would be great, because then we could just obfuscate the ffmpeg-user and
> ffmpeg-devel addresses a little and explain precisely how to deobfuscate them
> (after explaining what thread hijacking and top posting is)
> ?

I'll try to think on a patch on mailinglists.html to obfuscate the links.
I'm wondering too if the subscriber form at
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user could be modified
to oblige the to be subscriber to pass a quiz test on netiquette :-)

> > More seriously, documentation duplication makes as less sense as code
> > duplication.
>
> just revert it ...

Thanks, reverted.

Regards,
V?ctor