[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] ffmpeg: Don't offer H.264 compatibility warning for NV12 input

[James Almer]

On 6/15/2017 11:43 AM, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:22:34 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> 
>> no, but that doesnt mean we can make false statments about other
>> people or their work.
>>
>> Theres the moral wrong
>>
>> Theres the technical wrong, of not correctly stating the problem and
>> that potentially affecting work on the problem
>>
>> Theres the social wrong. That is people who spend significant time on
>> the CLI becoming offended and alienated by such statments.
>>
>> Theres the legal wrong, there are many people who worked on the CLI
>> at some point. Anyone of them can probably sue us for defamation,
>> but IANAL. I dont think that would help FFmpegs / our public image.
> 
> I think you're blowing this out of proportion, as usual (I guess I
> should sue myself because I've worked on ffmpeg.c too?).
> 
> But my particular problem here is that some people just can't admit that
> certain parts of the code are just bad, and that they actively fight
> cleaning it up. Fuck that, I don't see any reason to hold back under
> these circumstances.
> 
> ffmpeg.c in particular is a vile POS. Whenever there is a problem, I
> find half a dozen more problems, no clear way to fix it, and general
> misery. If I want to try to find out how to do something specific with
> ffmpeg.c, its help output is utterly useless and confusing, and I end
> up reading the code. I guess it produces more stackoverflow traffic and
> more need for ffmpeg specialists (especially when there's payment), so
> I guess it has something good too.

Why did a patch to remove a warning from certain cases ended up in shit
flinging I'll never know. But I'd very much like it if it stopped here.

> 
>> A big part of the current CLI has btw been implemented by Libav
>> developers, and merged into FFmpeg, other parts are very old code
>> from times when FFmpeg was much simpler.
> 
> Who mentioned Libav?