[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avutil: Add Simple loop detector

[Lynne]

Aug 14, 2019, 19:29 by michael at niedermayer.cc:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
>
>> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by michael at niedermayer.cc:
>>
>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This provides an alternative to retry counters.
>> >> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
>> >> > no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
>> >>
>> >> Going by the old principle of "an API is not tested until it has at least 3 users"
>> >> might it make sense to delay this until we've found and tested it in a few use-cases?
>> >> Depending on how much hurry there is to get the bug-fix in.
>> >>
>> >> I assume there is also an actual bug-fix patch somewhere, maybe we should have that
>> >> in the same patch series to make it easier to review the actual usage?
>> >>
>> >
>> > sure will repost this eventually with 3+ bugfixes.
>> > But wont search for such bugs ATM as ive too many other things to do
>> > so it might take a bit of time before i do
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > diff --git a/doc/APIchanges b/doc/APIchanges
>> >> > index 6603a8229e..eee4c30ec5 100644
>> >> > --- a/doc/APIchanges
>> >> > +++ b/doc/APIchanges
>> >> > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ libavutil:     2017-10-21
>> >> > 
>> >> > API changes, most recent first:
>> >> > 
>> >> > +2019-XX-XX - XXXXXXXXXX - lavu 56.XX.XXX - loop_detector.h
>> >> > +  Add loop_detector.h, av_is_loop(), AVSimpleLoopDetector
>> >>
>> >> Does is mean it is a public/installed header?
>> >>
>> >
>> > that was intended, but it can of course be trivially be kept local if people
>> > prefer when i repost with 3+ dependant fixes 
>> >
>>
>> You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're doing this, nor even the second.
>> I still do no think even with 3 bugfixes this deserves to be in lavu but rather in every library as a non-installed header, at the very most. I still prefer for code to be duplicated for such a small amount of fixes.
>> Iit could encourage other developers to put this in their code when it isn't needed when a properly written loop would never go infinite.
>> And, regardless where this code goes, its still as its been pointed out, a hack.
>>
>
> why are you agressive ?
>

I can't find a single hint of aggression in my email. I'm being direct and factual.
If you see this as aggression you shouldn't read any specifications or reports, you'll find yourself very offended.



> this is just a patch that is not ready to be applied as reimar asked for 3
> dependant bugfixes.
> We can discuss where to put the header when theres actual code that can be
> commited. discussing it before we can see the whole patchset makes no real
> sense.
> I mean you complain that something would have been done thats not even
> possible ATM given the peoples requests in the review ...
>

I couldn't help but perceive the discussion you were having and your intentions to post another version as ignoring others' opinions.