[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libmpcodecs support

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:15:10PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 03:53:52PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > If this is supposed to help porting filters, publish a branch and write
> > > a filter porting HOWTO that instructs people where to pull that branch
> > > from.  There is absolutely no need to have this code in trunk/master.
> > 
> > Well, it would allow testing reimplementations against the libmpcodecs
> > versions via FATE. Also it has exposed some significant performance
> > differences already, so there's some suspicion that this might make
> > people actually bother to compare performance.
> 
> Michael wrote the code already, devs working on filters know where to
> find it.  There is no need to bloat FFmpeg with libmpcodecs.

They knew that before, and it still seems nobody bothered.
Sometimes convenience is the only thing that matters in the end.

> > > I also see that Carl Eugen just committed the tab removal that directly
> > > conflicts with my uncrustify work without any previous discussion, even
> > > though Reimar mentioned that I am working on something related.
> > 
> > I have to say I didn't expect there to be any conflict, while suboptimal
> > with concern to history, does this kind of change cause issues for your
> > work?
> 
> It does not cause direct issues for my work, but Carl Eugen could not know
> that.  The least thing he could do is ask, in the appropriate forum.  On
> top of that I remember him being against cosmetic changes in the past.
> 
> Then there is the issue of bloating the history with huge and completely
> pointless commits and causing conflicts for every single developer with
> changes in one of the affected files.

I agree it wasn't optimal, and I don't disagree that you are justified
to complain. I just see the agressiveness as neither helping not justified.

> How this kind of unannounced change can suddenly be taken for granted
> without discussion just boggles my mind.  Had somebody else done it in
> a different context, I'm sure the mob would already be calling for
> accounts to be closed.

Honestly I think that's mostly because "the mob" has gone or become tired.
I never considered closing an account as anything other than either an
emergency reaction or after you just see no way of discussing with anyone
reasonable.
And I just can't imagine that you and Carl Eugen can't come to an agreement
concerning this, he already said he will revert it if asked, and he wasn't really aware
of your work, and I gave my ok before mentioning what you are working on, and
I did not CC you or the MPlayer list (I thought about it, but I assumed that
the discussion would go on for a while before anything was going to happen
and thus it should not be necessary, my fault).