[Ffmpeg-devel] Increasing Audio Buffer Size
Tue May 9 22:37:40 CEST 2006
On 9-May-06, at 4:27 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Cyril Zorin <cyril.zorin at gmail.com> writes:
>> On 9-May-06, at 3:39 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>> Cyril Zorin <cyril.zorin at gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 9-May-06, at 2:56 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:05:20PM -0400, Cyril Zorin wrote:
>>>>>> If many audio decoders already output interlaced channel audio
>>>>>> data, then they'd have to be modified to support the proposed
>>>>> nonsense, nothing needs to be modified, the new system supports
>>>>> interleaved as well as non interleaved output, the later makes
>>>>> sense as it might be closer to the internal format and it might be
>>>>> easier to filter / encode
>>>> Right now then, without this glorious modification that you're
>>>> to make, how would I specify that my audio output data is not
>>> You can't.
>>>> No, it's __you__ who's misunderstanding my point. You can't say
>>>> "comments welcome" and then mouth off to people -- are comments
>>>> welcome, or not? If you think you're a genius and
>>> He *is* a genius.
>>>> have the liberty to treat people like idiots, then go ahead and
>>> Around here, we all have the liberty to treat idiots as such. It
>>> the nice effect of scaring them off, thus keeping the distraction
>>> level low.
>>> It is not particularly polite of you to butt in on the mailing list
>>> throwing insults left and right, without even reading up on the
>>> code first. I think I'll list you in the above-mentioned category
>>> until you convince me otherwise.
>> What? He was the one throwing insults, in whichever direction you
>> choose. You'll note that my original reply had some questions, and
>> some remarks. I wasn't insulting anyone. You can think what you want,
>> but your liberalism just cost you a decoder for LucasArts Smush v2,
>> and the accompanying audio format, both of which I've completed and
>> tested. Oops!
> You are new to this list, and should learn how people here write
> before getting so touchy. As a general rule, we don't go out of our
> way to be polite. That is not an efficient way of communication.
Sure it's efficient. It avoids wasting time like we are doing right
now, not sure if you noticed. If Michael had replied without pounding
his chest so much, maybe we'd get somewhere with this buffer size
issue. Say, what about my previous message: "your liberalism cost you
a decoder..." --> does this seem efficient to you?
> You first posted to this list one week ago. Michael has probably
> contributed more than anyone else to ffmpeg. Does that suggest
> anything to you about who should be listening to whom? If it doesn't,
Wait, so now someone's politeness is inversely related to how much
they've contributed to a project? Are you purposely misunderstanding,
or what? It makes sense, no? "Guy who's been around for a while is
polite to new guy, so new guy will contribute his code and will
become another guy who's been around, who will in turn be polite to
another new guy..."
> you should probably go away and think things over for a while.
If you seriously believe that being rude and elitist toward newcomers
is "the way to go", then you're in hardly any position to give me
advice as to "where I should go."
> M?ns Rullg?rd
> mru at inprovide.com
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at mplayerhq.hu
More information about the ffmpeg-devel