[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] rtsp: rename certain options after a deprecation period

Michael Niedermayer michael at niedermayer.cc
Sat Jan 27 03:25:49 EET 2018

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:52:19AM +0100, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:21:14 +0100
> Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2018-01-26 0:00 GMT+01:00 Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com>:
> > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:  

> I'd also like to point out that it _did_ happen in the past that
> Michael went off tangents in patch reviews and asked for unreasonable
> extra work because of minor issues.

Ive written a huge number of reviews over the years, and i certainly
did what you claim above in one of these many reviews. Not in the case
you refer here to though. And if it happens, that a unreasonable request
is made, discussion is whats needed. 
In fact many developers have made requests that others have found
unreasonable. Many if not most of the more active developers have.
Its not a uncommon source of long discussions.

> The AVFrame.opaque_ref fiasco
> (whose non-sensical later solution which he demanded was finally
> pushed, even though it still does not solve the issues he claimed his
> approach would solve) comes to mind,

so much you say in here
ill skip over "non-sensical" and "demanded" these are not really true in
the way you present it here.
the solution choosen IIRC does indeed not achive everything. It was
in fact a compromise that resulted from the discussion of many developers.
IIRC a solution that would solve all teh listed issues was not liked by
multiple people

> and I considered his general
> conduct on this issue harassment (not like I'd get an apology).

If anything i said felt like harrasment, i appologize. That said
a review or comment or objection to a patch is not harrasment and
I will continue to review and when it is needed object to changes.

Maybe it is just my point of view here but you seem very sensitive
to anything that is not an approval of your changes.
While at the same time your replies are often aggressive or offensive.

Just as random examples, your single line objection here certainly came
over in a passive aggressive tone:

and your next reply, that basically told me farewell when i said that i
wouldnt continue to maintain or help maintain hevc when error messages
would have to be ommited (not one specific one but in general)

And that was just a day or 2 ago. 

The very mail here i reply to is then also accusing me of harrasment 
in patch review from last year. I dont exactly enjoy having to reply
to these kind of accusations. More so considering how long ago the
review is that refers to.

and on IRC 2 days ago

Jän 25 23:47:53 <jamrial>       <+wm4> also michaelni harassed me a lot in the past (like making me go through all that pointless crap when getting rid of the side data merging
Jän 25 23:48:02 <jamrial>       can you drop that already? it was not pointless
Jän 25 23:48:22 <jamrial>       i was careless and did a merge wrong, and google came out of the woodworks because i broke chromium
Jän 25 23:48:41 <jamrial>       the abi concerns had a reason

I would really like to see these accusations stop, this is not something
anyone else that i remember has done in FFmpeg or Libav, not at this scale
at least.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and
there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. -- Plato
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20180127/ef4ace17/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list