[FFmpeg-devel] Please clean up incoming

[Robert Swain]

2008/10/22 The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net>:
> Attila Kinali wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:10:17 -0700 Baptiste Coudurier
>> <baptiste.coudurier at smartjog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, I cannot move the files, so someone else must move them... I
>>> also guess annoying someone else to move the file will not be very
>>> efficient.
>>
>> Yes, but there are more than enough people who can do that. Just
>> compile a list of what you'd want to keep and where you'd put it.
>
> Prompted by compn, I took a stab at starting to test and potentially
> organize incoming/ at one point, but ran up against this basic question:
> in an ideal world where everything were organized correctly, how *would*
> it be organized?
>
> The "everything goes under its bugtracker issue directory" is the only
> proposition I've seen so far, and it has its downsides - the first one
> which springs to mind being that not everything is associated with a
> specific tracker issue (if nothing else, some things should be kept in
> permanent "sample of this type of file" storage).
>
> I don't know how the samples archive should theoretically be organized.
> I don't know how the non-samples files (present only because they
> demonstrate an unfixed bug) should be organized. I don't know whether or
> not there are potentially any files which fall into neither category but
> should be kept anyway, much less how they should be organized.
>
> If answers to these organization questions can be arrived at, I can
> spend some of my time on testing incoming/ and pointing to where
> specific files should go. Without that, there's not much I can do but to
> list whether or not a specific problem seems to still exist.

Where does one put a file considering each file potentially has:

- a container
- a number of audio/video streams using various codecs
- other features that may be of interest in a sample (metadata?
probably a plethora of other things...)

?

Subdirectory per container seems fairly obvious to me. Then either
more subdirectories per codec somehow, or maybe have all files
annotated in accompanying text files with a name identical to the file
but with .txt extension or so. Comments?

Regards,
Rob