[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/8] lavc/avcodec: simplify codec id/type validity checking

Soft Works softworkz at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 5 17:06:29 EEST 2022



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Anton
> Khirnov
> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 3:21 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/8] lavc/avcodec: simplify codec id/type
> validity checking
> 
> Quoting Soft Works (2022-06-05 13:10:49)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Anton
> > > Khirnov
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 12:42 PM
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/8] lavc/avcodec: simplify codec
> id/type
> > > validity checking
> > >
> > > So much text, but no actual answer. Again:
> > > > I fail to see how calling avcodec_open2() with AVMEDIA_TYPE_ATTACHMENT
> > > > is valid API usage. What do you expect it to do? There are no
> > > > AVMEDIA_TYPE_ATTACHMENT decoders.
> >
> > As you didn't mention anything about how you want to address it, does it
> > mean that your intention is to leave it as is and declare all other code
> > being wrong?
> 
> Frankly, your attitude of breathlessly repeating "ffprobe is BROKEN, and
> this is HORRIBLE" is unhelpful.
> I am open to various kinds of solutions, which include (temporarily?)
> reintroducing previous behavior, but first we must determine what the
> actual issue is. I.e. whether it is libavcodec or ffprobe that is
> broken. You seem uninterested in this question, which makes me not very
> interested in spending time on this.

I need to fight about every single character of submitted code, and you 
are trying to justify your commit that clearly breaks behavior instead of 
either reverting or offering a solution.
Instead I need to go through stupid discussions with you. I don't understand
that behavior. For most others it would be totally clear that such commit
would need to be reverted until a new solution is found.

I have reported the issue nicely and well explained. But you start to find
some justifications instead of suggesting any solution.

I don't like that. I wish I wouldn't have been required to write that much
text, and you would have just responded something like, OK, I'll see how I 
can resolve the regression that my commit has caused.

That would be a normal reaction IMO.

Regards,
softworkz









More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list