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

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> 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.

What i refered to as agressive is
"You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're doing this, nor even the second."

Lets look at this claim by claim

"You are ignoring 2 developers" 

I do not, i noted that 2 people dislike this patch and i will eventually post
a new patchset. If that is still disliked by 2 then we need to look at what
the oppinion of the 2 people will be exactly about that new patchset.
The 2 developers have not seen a not yet written patchset only thing really
known is who the author of the patchset will be.


"and this isn't the first time you're doing this, nor even the second."

This is a simple ad hominem attack, we know who you speak of (me) but noone can
know what issues you talk about so noone can verify this or correct or improve
anything.


"its still as its been pointed out, a hack."

If you see some issue in the code you should explain what issue that is and
not just call the code a "hack". Because noone knows what you refer to and
there is nothing that can be done about issues that noone knows what they
refer to.


Another example of aggression from you is (IRC from a few hours ago)

<Lynne> irc logs off? irc logs off.
<Lynne> carl not here? carl not here.
<Lynne> nicolas is an awful person who disagrees with everything and does no work like ever, yet hangs around the ml to be obnoxious
<Lynne> his opinions on asserts should disqualify him from working on any library ever
<durandal_1707> add reimar to that list
<Lynne> I'll remove that assert if I push that patch, just because maybe he'll fuck off then
<durandal_1707> they only work toward covering michael
<Lynne> reimar does, nickolas is just there to misunderstand and be annoying and demanding

just stop these attacks/insults against people.

Thanks

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

You can kill me, but you cannot change the truth.
-------------- 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/20190816/ea4ca1b3/attachment.sig>