[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] swscale: fix To{Y, UV} extern prototypes.

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Sunday 2012-09-30 15:42:37 -0700, Ronald S. Bultje encoded:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Clément Bœsch <ubitux at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> but why on earth would I care if this is the best I get in response
> >> for all my efforts
> >
> > I think you misunderstand the statements made, and/or the ton. What are
> > you exactly angry about here?
> 

> "that makes only sense when libav will continue to work on sws and
> there is something to merge ..."
> 

> The suggestion is that A) we haven't done shit in the past few years

No, there is nothing explicitly implicating this in that sentence.

> and B) that our only purpose should be to serve you your dogfood.

Again, I cannot read such implication.

So, OK, maybe something was lost in the context, so let's replay it: 

CB: Wouldn't it make sense to keep them in sync?
MN: in sync with libav? to simplify merge work?
MN: that makes only sense when libav will continue to work on sws and
MN: there is something to merge ...
MN: and recent rumors dont point in that direction.
MN: that said we certainly can switch to the 2 fptr API. And we certainly
MN: should integrate all improvments anyone does on a swscale fork or
MN: another scaler.

My exegesis:

A) keeping in sync with libav is worthy just as long as it is
functional to the merging business (since that avoids more conflict
resolution manual labour). Since there are rumors about a possible
rewrite of libsws, there *might* be no much point into this.

B) improvements/extensions in external code should be integrated
in/ported to FFmpeg.

> Note that in the above, we=I and our=my, given that I'm the only
> person actually doing any real new non-maintenance work on sws in the
> past few years.

I can only see technical implications, which you may like or not, and
honestly nothing that is denigrating other people work on the merged
code. Of course you may argue that the alleged implications are indeed
"implicit", but in that case you should not call that "utter
arrogance", but rather "subtle arrogance" ;-).

> Thus, the suggestion is misleading and insulting. Michael needs social skills.

We all need to improve those (at various levels, and in different ways).
-- 
FFmpeg = Fierce Faithful Mystic Political Evil Gangster