[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Add libavsequencer.

Stefano Sabatini stefano.sabatini-lala
Fri Aug 27 02:11:19 CEST 2010


On date Wednesday 2010-08-25 14:36:42 +0200, Sebastian Vater encoded:
> M?ns Rullg?rd a ?crit :
> > Sebastian Vater <cdgs.basty at googlemail.com> writes:
> >
> >   
> >> M?ns Rullg?rd a ?crit :
> >>     
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>>>> Also, some parts already have been reviewed (see ffmpeg-soc mainly for
> >>>>>> that), so why you are concerning me, that I'm dodging reviews?
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> A while ago you proposed that, to expedite the process, only a part of
> >>>>> a huge blob of code be reviewed, and the remainder accepted on faith.
> >>>>> I call that dodging review.
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> I think you mean the part where we were talking about the mixer stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> The point here is that the mixing functions are to 99% very similar,
> >>>> i.e. 16-bit mixing in differs in int16_t vs. int8_t for 8-bit mixing and
> >>>> shifting. It's a total of 23k lines which is pretty large.
> >>>>
> >>>> My idea here was, that just 2-3 of these functions are reviewed, then we
> >>>> discuss of creating #define macros for these and therefore get rid of
> >>>> 20k lines, making the whole stuff much more easilier to maintain and
> >>>> also to review, saving us all huge amounts of time.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you simply misunderstood that part, sorry for this!
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> I would appreciate if you dropped that belittling attitude.  You speak
> >>> as though to a small child who believes he has seen an elf.  Most
> >>> people, little children included, take offence at being addressed in
> >>> such a manner.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> Could you clarify here, what you exactly mean? I really don't understand.
> >> Maybe with some examples showing the issue on a strong emphasis and what
> >> you expected and got? Thanks in advance!
> >>     
> >
> > "you simply misunderstood that", "you must have missed that", "it is
> > quite complex, really", etc, etc.
> >   
> 
> Sorry, if this offended you, but I neither wanted nor will threat you
> (or anybody else) as a small child. I just considered it as a
> description as I had seen the issue.
> 
> Please note, that I also use these terms at myself (I just missed that,
> I misunderstood this), and I'm surely not considering me as a small
> child in these cases, also. ;-)
> 
> Anyway, for sake of peace and respect, I'll try to avoid this in the
> future, when I talk to you.
> 
> >   
> >>>>>> Regarding the minimal patch...this is just what you have in front of
> >>>>>> you! A minimal patch, which does simply nothing else than adding the
> >>>>>> library...or did you mean sth. else here?
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> That patch does NOTHING useful.  Ronald asked you repeatedly to submit
> >>>>> a full set of patches allowing SOMETHING to be done with the simplest
> >>>>> file format.  You continue to (rather clumsily) attempt to evade this
> >>>>> request.
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> I already told them that I want to do first a port which has the same
> >>>> compatibility as TuComposer regarding playback,
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> Not in my svn.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> What's the problem you see here with this approach? After all, this is
> >> quite complex, and small changes can have side effects (sometimes not
> >> easy to track by audible means).
> >>     
> >
> > It is a huge piece of unfinished code.  It doesn't belong there.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. TuComposer compatibility
checks have not to be published in mainline SVN, but they are an
useful way to compare FFmpeg and TuComposer implementations. Anyway
Ronald already suggested the "FFmpeg way" to do it.

> Yes, the part being most advanced is the player right now, as well as
> the lq mixer (except the large code line problem).




More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list