[FFmpeg-devel] New asf demuxer

[wm4]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:02:50 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote:

> On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:51:53 pm wm4 wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:46:12 +0200
> >
> > Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:42:30 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > > > > But please allow me to repeat my question: Why do
> > > > > think the new demuxer should be used? What sample
> > > > > does it fix?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you think it should NOT be used?
> > >
> > > The main reason imo is that it is (apparently, I may
> > > of course be wrong) not intended to fix anything but
> > > just to remove a demuxer that has seen many (man-)
> > > years of testing.
> >
> > The new demuxer was written based on the official ASF spec, 
> 
> I am not sure what you are trying to say here...
> 
> > and was tested against a number of real world samples.
> 
> Please share the samples, I would also like to test!
> 
> > Also, the code being old is really meaningless here. The old 
> > demuxer didn't handle all files well either and it's probably 
> > full of bugs. 
> 
> Are you thinking of a specific issue?
> As said, it seems to me that the new demuxer does not fix any 
> issue that the old demuxer has.
> 
> > > From a very quick look, the new code seems mostly
> > > unreviewed
> >
> > This is wrong.
> 
> From a very cursory look, I saw things like:
> 
> int a = 0;
> int b = 1;
> a = 0;
> 
> ...
> 
> //Set dts
> pts = ...
> 
> I of course do not claim that these issues are important but 
> I believe that code that is intended to replace existing code 
> should have a slightly higher standard.
> 
> > The code has been in review for several months before it 
> > was finally merged.
> 
> I of course cannot really comment on this claim but this is 
> not what I felt happened on avconv-devel.
> 
> > > which makes me think that it can't really
> > > be tested.
> >
> > This makes literally no sense at all. None.
> 
> The reviews appear to have been very cursory, no sample was 
> named that got fixed: Why do you think that any testing 
> was done?
> 
> > > Do you disagree? Do you know of samples that work
> > > better with the new demuxer?
> >
> > It is known that it fixed some samples.
> 
> So you apparently did more testing than me. That's great, 
> please share "some samples"!
> 
> (And no, a link to trac is not a wild claim.)

Unlike you, I don't think that the efforts o the Libav automatically
don't matter.