[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] remove MSVC-specific

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Michel Bardiaux <mbardiaux at mediaxim.be> wrote:
> Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:39:01PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>  >> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>  >>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:53:27PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>  >>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:47:25PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>  >>>>> Also i assume that whoever wrote the 2 lines had tested them so i would guess
>  >>>>> they are more likely correct than not.
>  >>>> History proves that not (the ifdef was wrong sometime in-between) ;-)
>  >>>>
>  >>>>> And yes, i also would appreciate if we had some maintainer for MSVC related
>  >>>>> hunks.
>  >>>> And my main intention was to get some of those complainers (even if
>  >>>> their complaining is justified) to do something.
>  >>> Hmm if you think that breaking MSVC is effective in raising a volunteer
>  >>> for MSVC maintaince then by all means go ahead with the ritual.
>  >> Probably the reverse: it will reinforce the feeling (whether justified
>  >> or not) that submitting contributions for MSVC support is pointless
>  >> because they would be either rejected at once, or savaged later, by
>  >> MS-bashers (of which there is certainly no lack here).
>  >
>  > I do not know who you think of, but if you haven't noticed gcc,
>  > binutils, Solaris userland, OS/2 all have received similar levels of
>  > flames (and in the case of OS/2 IIRC much harder to reimplement code was
>  > removed than this MSVC stuff).
>
>  I remember vividly when building with Mingw got you the message ?se a
>  real OS"every time you used ffmpeg...
>
>  > Also IIRC for OS/2 things moved much more
>  > smoothly after people stopped insisting on ugly hacks.
>  > And even ICC support was not done in one step or even one day, and
>  > involved its share of flames.
>  > Sure, as a MSVC user expect to need a thicker skin for several reasons,
>  > but I think we have proven often enough that clean patches will get
>  > accepted even for a feature considered "useless" by most, though opinions
>  > of what is clean may differ.
>  > Maybe I missed something, but so far I have only seen people arguing for
>  > the MSVC stuff without any specific arguments, I can not even remember
>  > saying _explicitly_ that they use that code (though it is quite possible
>  > that they meant to say that).
>  > And lastly: if there are more than a handful MSVC users, you also have
>  > the option of doing a fork and keeping it up to date, thereby proving
>  > that there are people willing to maintain that stuff and it is mot much
>  > effort to maintain.
>
>  You know perfectly well its not really an option, because under the
>  rules of the ffmpeg lists, the fork would have to do *all* the support
>  for its users. Not just support of the parts not in the mainstream svn.
>
>  > But from my point of view the situation seems a lot like with releases:
>  > lots of complaining, little work actually done.

And how about getting some MSVC patches, while there is good will about them.