[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] New library for shared non-generic libav* utils

Måns Rullgård mans
Fri Jul 9 22:52:41 CEST 2010


Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:57:16PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Baptiste Coudurier <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On 07/09/2010 11:26 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> Baptiste Coudurier<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com>  writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On 07/09/2010 11:02 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >>>> Baptiste Coudurier<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com>   writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 07/09/2010 09:48 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >>>>>> Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at>    writes:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:41:59PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at>    writes:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I spended alot of time on libavutil and its only goal was to become
>> >>>>>>>>> a general utils lib
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Said who?  It wasn't even your idea to begin with.  It was suggested
>> >>>>>>>> and implemented by Alexander Strasser.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> svn blame of *.c *.h says:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> so id say, yes iam still the primary maintainer and author, even if
>> >>>>>>> we consider that blame is not the worlds most idiot proof way to
>> >>>>>>> check this
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, you wrote more lines than anyone else, but not by any large
>> >>>>>> margin.  Of the total ~11k lines, you only contributed roughly 25%.
>> >>>>>> If lines were votes, you'd be losing.  You seem to like votes...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nah, this is heavily biased. A lot of lines are defines and macros in
>> >>>>> *.h, not talking about the recent controversial documentation commits.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Much of libavutil functionality resides in header files, so counting
>> >>>> them is anything but biased.Are you jealous because your name didn't
>> >>>> show up at all?
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you on crack ? You'd better stop your childish game and get your
>> >>> shit together Mans. You are going too far.
>> >>
>> >> You are the one who needs to calm down.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty calm at the moment. On the contrary, during the past few
>> > days I feel that you have been very offensive, and any thread seems an
>> > opportunity to continue and provoke people, myself included. I think
>> > your last sentence illustrates this well.
>> >
>> >> Did I do something to offend you?
>> >
>> > Not only me, but other people as well.
>> 
>> Where exactly did I offend YOU?  I could understand, though not agree,
>> with Michael being offended by something I said in the last few days,
>> although offence has certainly not been my intent.
>> 
>> >> A while ago when you and Michael had a big fight, I mostly sided
>> >> with you.  Is this the thanks I get?
>> >
>> > That was a while ago, and as you can see, things have changed,
>> > hopefully I'd say. Michael is the one trying to be reasonable
>> > currently, and I second this.
>> 
>> Please do tell me what made you turn all your hate on me.  In the last
>> year or so, you have not missed one chance to jump into a discussion
>> for no other apparent reason than to contradict me just for the sake
>> of it.  Why this hostility?
>
> as you are asking this. i must admit that i have a similar feeling and
> question in relation to you
>
> the intreadwrite stuff (why does it bother you so much if we export
>  it through a clean and documented api, projects use it anyway and
>  as is its certainly filled with more issues than if we tried to make
>  it at least work in the common cases and documented it we can even
>  officially say its not recommanded to be used ...

Fine, I'll see what I can do there.  I guess something is better than
nothing after all.

> the gnu linker issues (you jumped at gnus defence but reading irc logs
>  a while ago gave me the feeling you did not understand the issues there
>  fully, so why did you attack me?

I don't remember exactly what I said, but I never meant to attack you
in person.  If I said something in anger, I apologise for that.

I may not fully understand all the intricacies of the linker, but I do
know this: it works the way the authors intend and document it to
work.  It would be foolish of us to insist on changing
well-established linker behaviour due to a weird corner-case where it
would be more convenient for us if it did differently.  Even if we
could get the linker changed, it would take many years for the change
to trickle down to the places where it matters: distributions.  People
building their own ffmpeg are not affected by the problem at all.

> my svn repo on mphq, i remember you where against me being able to
>  put my own little foss projects on mphq.

It's not that I personally have anything against _you_ keeping your
stuff there.  The hosting and bandwidth is sponsored by people doing a
favour to ffmpeg and mplayer, not to random projects they don't know
or care about.  Were every ffmpeg/mplayer developer to host his
private projects there, the sponsors might feel their generous (yes
really) donations were being abused.  We do not want that to happen.

Now as long as it stays at just your stuff, resource usage is minimal,
and should anyone ask, we can easily defend it.  We cannot however
have our system turn into an FFforge for all and sundry to use and
abuse at will.

> the vote (you know if you dont want to vote you can just not vote)

The thing about votes is that even those who choose not to participate
are bound by the outcome, no matter how unjust.

> libavutil now (we can add a new lib or just make libavfilter depend
> on libavcodec)

All I said was I have no objection to having some multimedia-related
things in libavutil.  It is an opinion I have a right to express, just
like you have a right to express yours.

> the 3rd->1st person commit

The style was inconsistent, and Stefano said he was too lazy to make
it consistent.  I honestly believed I was doing a good deed.

> the removial of the gnu linker bug explanation/rant

Rants have no place in API documentation, especially not if they take
the place of an actual description of what something does.  You cannot
deny that the describes the macro more accurately after my change.

Now I ask again, in which of the above instances did I offend BAPTISTE?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list