[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Multiple inclusion guards in headers

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sun Aug 17 21:40:46 CEST 2008

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:15:30PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:37:02PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 06:27:45PM +0100, Robert Swain wrote:
> > > 2008/8/17 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
> > > [The beginning of another potential flame war]
> > > 
> > > Michael, do you really want to have the burden of flame wars on top of
> > > reviewing code right now? I was hoping nothing would flare up for your
> > > sake so you didn't feel compelled to deal with such but you seem to
> > > now be starting it yourself...
> > 
> > Sorry but if i commit code with a clear notice that it will be cleaned
> > up ASAP and diego replies with nothing more than 
> > "(sigh)"
> I replied because of the license headers, not because of the inclusion
> guards, the lack of which I did in fact overlook.

> Nothing is gained by committing rubbish intermediate versions to the
> repository

it is not rubbish, it is the hisorically correct version. Its not the first
time we are trying to preserve the history of code. After all that is why
we are using svn used cvs and will one day use git, to keep track of
history, we could just use a ftp server otherwise and overwrite the
previous versions ...

> and the license headers remain unfixed, so your "cleanup
> ASAP" argument does not hold water.

the headers are rather low priority, i like to reply to our gsoc students
first, who are working against a deadline.

Anyway ive changed the license, I hope you like the new, you where not
particularely clear in your "sigh" comment so i tried my best and picked
one at random.

> > then i really think you are now complaining to the wrong person about
> > starting something
> Look, you threatened Vladimir with stopping to review his patches, when
> he submitted *working* but suboptimal code.  If you want to be elitist,
> perfectionist, nitpickish

I commited code with history. The first revission had some known issues that
where cleaned up immedeatly.
I did mention some rather concrete problems in respect to vladimirs patches
and did review many iteratons before i flamed him.

Here with pca.c/h i posted the files and after ramiro the next days said he
could use them, i commited and then cleaned them up. Where where you all
the time, you did not consider reviewing the patches it seems, but are
rather quick at adding meaningless single word replies to commits of
patches that HAD been posted previously.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it
by chance, they would not even known they had done so. -- Xenophanes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080817/eb2027b7/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list