[FFmpeg-cvslog] r17317 - trunk/libavcodec/mpegvideo_xvmc.c

[Diego Biurrun]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:12:57PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:04:59PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 07:49:26PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:59:48PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:06:24AM +0100, iive wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Log:
> > > > > > Check all critical xvmc struct fields in ff_xvmc_field_start()
> > > > > > and log error if they are not correct. All other functions
> > > > > > are supposedly called after that one, so use assert() for them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > and 1 point for you too for the assert/if cleanup
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >      if (render->filled_mv_blocks_num) {
> > > > > >          av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,
> > > > > > -               "Rendering surface contains %i unprocessed blocks\n",
> > > > > > +               "Rendering surface contains %i unprocessed blocks.\n",
> > > > > >                 render->filled_mv_blocks_num);
> > > > > >          return -1;
> > > > > 
> > > > > i think ive warned you at least once already to split things sanely and not
> > > > > commit random trash and there also was the leet reindent ...
> > > > > so
> > > > > -5, next time its 10 for you & diego if you mix cosmetics & functional changes
> > > > 
> > > > No penalty for committing a duplicated hunk? ;-p
> > > 
> > > i only remember it was the same as the one for peeing on your comrands feet
> > > so it doesnt matter anyway ;)
> > 
> > I thought part of the challenge was to review each other's commits and
> > detect breakage?  You said explicitly that penalties would be given
> > if the other gladiator noticed them and sent mail to -cvslog...
> 
> yes but the duplicated hunk didnt break anything, or?

Isn't the goal of the contest to attempt to produce near-perfect code? :)

> you pointed it out, it was fixed,
> also i think it was a mistake to ask each other to pont errors out the
> idea behind was just that i was too lazy to test each commit and that you 2
> could do it for me :)
> it was never intended to become some pissing match about every little typo

Well, it *is* a deathmatch... ;-)

I know I'm very nitpickish, I'm not implying that every typo should
entail a penalty.  It just don't think it's just to penalize an indent
commit that might have been split or not and leave duplicated hunks
and breaking the header twice unpunished...

Anyway, back to work...

Diego