[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2 v3] lavf/isom: add Dolby Vision sample entry codes for HEVC and H.264

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2018-12-18 18:24 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:21 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2018-12-18 18:17 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
>> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:17 PM Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > 2018-12-17 7:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
>> >> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 03:02 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> 2018-12-17 1:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> > >> > So as far as it's been possible to test this, that's been done
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Could you point me to a dva1 sample?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I have not seen any dolby vision samples with avc in the wild.
>> >> > > You can ask Vittorio if he has some as he noted about
>> >> > > possibly being able to ask for some before.
>> >> >
>> >> > The patch is of course ok if Vittorio tested it with his samples.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you, Carl Eugen
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately I have no idea what samples Vittorio does or does not
>> >> possess, he has only mentioned off-hand that he might able to get hold
>> >> of some if required. And since you were the one requiring them, I
>> >> pointed you towards him.
>> >>
>> >> For myself, I am happy with the following points regarding this:
>> >> 1. The identifiers are registered at the MPEG-4 RA.
>> >> 2. There is a proper specification for these mappings that is
>> >> seemingly kept up-to-date.
>> >> 3. The mappings specification specifically notes that the only
>> >> difference between the AVC and HEVC identifiers are the semantics
>> >> mentioned in ISO/IEC 14496-15. We already have all of the identifiers
>> >> specified which these mappings are based upon, so those semantics
>> >> should not matter to us (and if they do, we have already broken those
>> >> constraints at this point).
>> >> 4. The mapping specification specifically notes that the given AVC and
>> >> HEVC identifiers must also include the standard avcC and hvcC boxes so
>> >> that they can be decoded normally without any additional custom code.
>> >> 5. We have samples for at least one of the four identifiers that
>> >> matches points 1 to 4.
>> >> 6. Android, Chromium, VLC among others have already implemented these
>> >> identifiers in the same way.
>> >>
>> >> Now, if you are not happy with these points, then please clearly state
>> >> that you are blocking any and all additional identifier additions - no
>> >> matter how specified - as long as there are no samples on hand for
>> >> them.
>> >
>> > After taking a second look at this sentence, I find this wording being
>> > loaded and antagonizing. It was unprofessional, and I apologize for
>> > it.
>> >
>> > But the wish underneath was to get a clear view into what it was it
>> > that you wanted. That was what was mostly clouded for me in your
>> > replies, and that annoyed me to no end.
>> >
>> > While I must say that I would have been happy if you had told me you
>> > were not blocking the patch (set), I did not want a specific outcome
>> > out of this sentence. I just wanted you to voice your level of
>> > discomfort with the patch (set) and to voice your current wishes
>> > regarding it. I had set my wishes on the table with the six points,
>> > and why I believed the patch (set) was fine as it was.
>> >
>> > That is why after I wrote this post I asked Michael what it was that
>> > was the procedure for cases where developers have seemingly
>> > irreconcilable differences in opinions regarding a patch set. I did
>> > not know if that was the case, but the main point was that in the
>> > unfortunate case that the patch was blocked, and we did not agree on
>> > some points heavily enough that we could not co-operate, that the next
>> > step could be taken right away so as to not have the patch (set) sit
>> > there untouched for another week or two.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, you did not respond to or touch this sentence at all,
>> > which I then interpreted as your comments not being blockers.
>>
>> > I hope this makes my intentions and annoyances clear.
>>
>> Afaict, it contradicts what you wrote on irc yesterday.
>>
>> > I hope that in
>> > the future we can continue to co-operate, and that this makes it clear
>> > that I do not have any personal grievances nor a vendetta against you.
>>
>> Carl Eugen
>
> Feel free to quote the parts that you think contradict.

I was under the assumption you had read this:
[21:26:03 CET] <durandal_1707> carl just officially approved your
patch with single condition to mention ticket #7347

But re-reading it, there was no indication you actually understood
what Paul wrote (or even read it), so sorry if I was wrong.

Carl Eugen