[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v5 00/25] Subtitle Filtering 2022

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Soft Works (2022-08-25 00:19:33)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > Jean-Baptiste Kempf
> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:39 PM
> > To: ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v5 00/25] Subtitle Filtering 2022
> > 
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022, at 14:18, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Almost exactly identical objections to the basic aspects of the API
> > were
> > > raised independently by me, Lynne, and Hendrik.
> > > IIUC Soft Works still refuses to address them (though it's not so
> > easy
> > > to tell in a 200-email thread).
> > 
> > OK. I lost the lists of objections, then.
> > 
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
> 
> 
> Could everybody who still has any objection PLEASE name it with reasoning
> and explain in which way it should be resolved?

Most of the main objections are mentioned in [1]. As far as I can tell,
none of them were adequately addressed.

> I wasn't refusing to make a change, but I have taken a lot of effort to 
> explain the reasons for that necessity.
> I did that in several chats on IRC, on the ML, and recently, I have
> written 
> an article especially to address that concern and better explain the 
> background:
> 
> https://github.com/softworkz/SubtitleFilteringDemos/issues/1
> 
> It remained unresponded (but maybe unnoticed?).

Sorry, but all explanations I've seen from you are walls of text from
which I was never able to extract a solid argument that is not circular
and does not leap to unsupported conclusions.

And it is not just me, as far as I can tell, none of the others were
convinced either.

Frankly, you write too many words. A good argument about something like
this should fit in a paragraph. Maybe followed by some extended
explanations and clarifications, but the core of it should be quite
short and right at the top, not buried under heaps of introductory
remarks and examples. And if you cannot boil down your argument to a few
words then maybe it's not a very strong one.

> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022, at 14:18, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> ...
> > (though it's not so easy to tell in a 200-email thread)
> 
> Yes that's true. For that reason it is not helpful to talk about
> unspecified objections from more than half a year ago.

You are the author of this set, it is _your_ job to keep track of what
has and has not been addressed. And if you want reviews, you should also
try to make things easy to review.

> This is not further actionable without having a list of specific objections.
> When nobody responds, we need to assume that there aren't any left.

Or maybe people just got tired of repeating the same objections to the
same patches being submitted again and again.

[1] http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-December/288894.html
    Message-Id <MqASpFF--3-2 at lynne.ee>

-- 
Anton Khirnov