[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] extract bit rate calculation into separate function

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sat Nov 14 03:57:01 CET 2009

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:27:03AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Friday 2009-11-13 23:42:30 +0100, Robert Kr?ger encoded:
> > On 13.11.2009, at 19:02, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
> >> your most recent mail adds code duplication, the previous patches are
> > Hmmm, the code duplication must refer to the fact that my most recent  
> > patch only adds the new function without removing the code from the  
> > function where I extracted it. That's how I understood Stefano I should 
> > do it, i.e. send the one patch with the new function, have it accepted, 
> > then send the one eliminating the duplicate code, which I thought I just 
> > did. Please tell me what I should do to do it right so that someone who 
> > can make that call will accept it.
> I'd say, post the patch which adds the new function, the new function
> added should be designed without reference to the existing code, so it
> should be minimal and it should be correct.

The old code is well tested, code rewritten from scratch without reference
to the old is not.
Taking the old and improving it one step at a time is something that can
be reviewed,checked and verified quite reliably, being presented with
2 independant implemenattions and from that deciding if the new has not
added bugs can be difficult.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

If a bugfix only changes things apparently unrelated to the bug with no
further explanation, that is a good sign that the bugfix is wrong.
-------------- 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/20091114/0a8386c5/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list