[FFmpeg-cvslog] r14484 - in trunk/libavcodec: audioconvert.c audioconvert.h

[The Wanderer]

Diego Biurrun wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 07:14:48AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Diego Biurrun wrote:

>>> So the Wanderer suddenly turned into an FFmpeg developer?
>> 
>> For the record, I never claimed to be one. I don't have any
>> authority here, and I don't really expect to.
>> 
>> I do, however, have a mind, and an interest in the issue, and
>> therefore not unsurprisingly a desire to see it addressed.
> 
> Fair enough.  However, you do have a tendency to show up in
> discussions that have high flame and/or bikeshed potential.

I'm aware of that. I think that it's probably because those are also the
discussions which are complex enough, and require enough thought, for me
to find them interesting.

> It is difficult enough to resolve such issues (and reach consensus)
> with few people involved. The more people take part, the harder it
> gets.  If the people taking part in the discussion are not directly
> concerned with the issues at hand does not make things any easier.

While I can see your point, I don't know if I entirely agree.

Although there are exceptions, most of the time when I insert myself
into these discussions, it is because either I think I see a possibly
noteworthy perspective which does not appear to be being considered, or
because I think I see a way to approach the matter which might be more
helpful than what is already going on.

Reaching consensus may indeed be more difficult with more people
involved, but actually resolving the issue in a lasting fashion requires
figuring out what the difficulty is at the root of the matter - and
while adding more people does not particularly make that easier, adding
another perspective - even, perhaps in some cases especially an
uninvolved one - and/or changing the way the issue is being approached
very much can.

>> What you apparently interpret as "arguing for the sake of it" is,
>> at least in this case, a manifestation of the way I approach
>> figuring out (or otherwise trying to arrive at) answers on
>> complicated issues, of which this almost unquestionably is one.
> 
> You have said it yourself:
> 
>   Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with
>   any side of it.
> 
> And I have seen you argue in such a fashion many times.  You will
> have to forgive me if I sometimes cannot tell real concern, curiosity
> and arguing for the sake of arguing apart.

Noted and acknowledged. That warning is no longer as applicable as it
once was, but it remains enough so that I have not removed it. I do not
consider it to be as much a matter of "arguing for the sake of arguing"
as "arguing because it seems to me that the argument needs to be made";
if there is a discussion going on and I see what seems to me to be an
important point which is not being addressed, then even if I do not
agree with that point, I will sometimes (less frequently now than was
once the case) take it up simply so that it does not go unacknowledged.

If it helps any, I do frequently (and not even always consciously) make
a bit of a point to state "this is my opinion on this issue" in some
paraphrase, as a way of indicating that I *do* agree with some side of
that particular issue.

> Your contributions about English style and grammar are very much
> appreciated, as are any possible future contributions.  Nonetheless,
> when you start playing an active role in flamewars, I feel you are
> stepping out of your territory.

I acknowledge that I have gotten involved in flamewars around here in
the past - the most recent which springs to mind being the Uoti clash. I
also acknowledge that I have, for the most part, not been particularly
helpful in those cases; in some instances I have come to regret getting
involved at all.

In this case, however, I do not see what I have posted as being actively
flame-y; indeed I have sometimes gone out of my way to avoid attacks and
insults when they might have been possible. I have, so far as I
remember, remained focused on the issue itself, considering different
possibilities and their consequences, attempting to explain (to myself
as well as to others) the positions as I understand them and the
problems involved with each. I may not have done that very well, but I
would certainly not consider this to be one of my worse moments as far
as arguments in these projects goes.

I don't know that I consider the notion of "my territory" to be
particularly applicable, so long as I am not attempting to say "because
I object, it must not be done that way" - which, for the record, in this
case I certainly am not; I do not work directly with the FFmpeg code,
and my attempting to dictate how it must be arranged would not be
appropriate. I have an opinion, and an interest, and in most cases am
willing either to be persuaded to a different position or to shut up
about it when another position prevails; so long as I do not attempt to
dictate that my position be adhered to, I do not see why there would be
anything wrong with my getting involved with any discussion to which I
feel I have something to contribute.

> I know it is difficult to say this without being insulting, but this
> is my opinion and I know it is shared by at least Mans and Baptiste.

I appreciate your letting me know that. (When people have a problem with
me, I would much rather know it than either go on thinking they do not
or think it is worse than it is.) I also appreciate your approaching
this politely and calmly; I have had issues, not all that long ago, with
people who did not.

I would like to say that I take no insult from this, but I am not
entirely sure that that is true. I can say, at the least, that I am not
strongly offended by it, and that I will probably take it into account
in future decisions.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.