[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so

[Baptiste Coudurier]

Hi

Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:42:17AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:18:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:15:56AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:31:07AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:59:05AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>>>> Let's just get one thing straight: FFmpeg != you.
>>>>> I did not claim this, but ffmpeg is even less you. Still you threaten
>>>>> to make decissions about ffmpegs developers based on what you think
>>>>> is best or what you think is a consensus amongth the active developers.
>>>>> Why is it that you think that your oppinion about a consensus amongth
>>>>> the active developers is better than the ffmpeg maintainers oppionion
>>>>> about a consensus amongth the active developers?
>>>>> After all ive not acted against the oppinon of the majority ever
>>>>> still you repeatly emphasize that you wont listen to me.
>>>> That is not true, you act according to your own best judgement,
>>>> regardless of where the majority lies.
>>> I act according to the majority on the mailinglist normally, i guess you
>>> might be able to find exceptions but this isnt that common. And certainly
>>> never when it comes to organisatorial things like crating mailinglists, 
>>> i might ignore a majority if its about code and sufficiently silly.
>> What is "the majority of the mailing list"?  A majority of the
>> developers disagreed with you about spelling, 
> 
> And iam trying to spell correctly, so ive followed that request.
> You can claim iam not good enough, and you can also claim i dont
> reread what i write 5 times. But dont claim i dont try to spell
> correctly. That just is a unjustified attack.
> 
> 
>> a majority also has a
>> different attitude towards compiler warnings,
> 
> Please start a vote on this, no iam serious
> if >50% of the developers are in favor of
> "lets remove as many warnings as possible as long as it doesnt slow down
> the code, makes it unreadable or bloated" then iam not against adding such
> a rule to the policy and following it 

I completely vote FOR this rule.

I'd like this rule to include explicitly or implicitly the removing of
gcc warnings like "suggested parenthesis around blah blah" and yes I
know C standard defines priorities clearly, but it's just annoying and
makes me hard time catching which warnings are bad and which are ok.

This was just one example Im thinking about.

[...]

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
SMARTJOG S.A.                                    http://www.smartjog.com
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
Phone: +33 1 49966312