[Ffmpeg-devel] [RFC] ffmpeg-windows mailinglist?

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 12:28:13AM -0500, Chris Forsythe wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:09:21PM -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>Usually the comments boil down to "this is ugly" or something similar  
> >>with no feedback on what could make the patch "pretty" enough to be  
> >>accepted. As an example, taken from <http://svn.cod3r.com/perian/ 
> >>trunk/ffmpeg-svn-mactel.patch>:
> >>-        ".balign 16                     \n\t"
> >>+        BALIGN_16
> >>and
> >>+#if defined(__APPLE__)
> >>+#  define BALIGN_8  ".align 3 \n\t"
> >>+#  define BALIGN_16 ".align 4 \n\t"
> >>+#else
> >>+#  define BALIGN_8  ".balign 8 \n\t"
> >>+#  define BALIGN_16 ".balign 16 \n\t"
> >>+#endif
> >>
> >>Is this really so ugly as to be a scar upon the codebase? If not,  
> >>then what in the linked patch is truly so objectionable?
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >It's ugly because it makes an assumption about a platform which may or
> >may not be true in the future.
> >
> 
> Maybe in the future if a patch is rejected for "ugly" it might be better 
> to explain what is ugly about it?

where did i reject a patch with just "ugly" ?

and if some comment to a patch is unclear, then why not simply ask what the
person who wrote the comment meant? "why is that ugly, how could it be changed
so its not ugly"

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

In the past you could go to a library and read, borrow or copy any book
Today you'd get arrested for mere telling someone where the library is