[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Improve documentation and error reporting for the -pass option

Stefano Sabatini stefano.sabatini-lala
Sun Nov 30 17:50:27 CET 2008

On date Sunday 2008-11-30 11:14:47 -0500, The Wanderer encoded:
> Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > On date Sunday 2008-11-30 08:32:02 -0500, The Wanderer encoded:
> > 
> >> Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> Just another nitpick, "log file" or "logfile"?
> >> 
> >> "log file" is more correct, but then that leads to grouping issues
> >> (which are already there because "two pass" is being used as an
> >> adjective but isn't joined with e.g. a hyphen) which can be very
> >> hard to solve.
> > 
> > Check the patch attached, there is still a grouping issue but I think
> > that we can go with that...
> Yes, it's better (and better than I would likely have been able to do).
> I see one possible way to maybe improve it further, but there are
> potential problems with that too, so I'd call this good enough as far as
> that goes.
> I would, however, probably say "that log file is used" rather than "that
> log file is read". That's not worth reposting the patch over, though.

Yes, also I've made explicit in the first sentence that the option is
used for *video* encoding. I'll apply tomorrow if no one has other
suggestions/objections or before if Diego gives its explicit approval
(sorry to waste your bandwidth Diego ;-)).
> >> I take it this is in reaction to the discussion over on -user with
> >> "Viaduct Productions"?
> >> 
> >> As a fix for that issue I'm not terribly happy with this,
> >> particularly since he(?) hasn't said "yes, this would have avoided
> >> confusion as far as I was concerned" or similar, but I don't have
> >> anything solid to base objections on.
> > 
> > And maybe he will never do some concrete proposal, but others did so
> > I based this patch on it.
> Unfortunately, so far as I remember, every single one of the proposals
> made by other people (including me) he has rejected with the claim that
> he would still have interpreted it incorrectly.
> I don't see how your patch's form could be interpreted incorrectly, but
> then I have a hard time seeing how the existing form could be
> interpreted incorrectly either, so I'm not necessarily a good judge -
> and I would rather not make a change which doesn't solve the problem.

I also found the original documentation quite good, nonetheless I
thought that it could be improved by adding information potentially
useful especially for a newcomer, so I think this patch, while not
strictly necessary, represents an improvement with respect to the
current docs.

FFmpeg = Fundamental & Funny MultiPurpose Elegant Game
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: improve-pass-docs-04.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1201 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20081130/10a3df52/attachment.patch>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list