[FFmpeg-user] I found the bugs

[Mark Filipak]

On 16/06/2024 19.25, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
> On 2024-06-16 01:19, Mark Filipak wrote:
> 
>> On 16/06/2024 03.51, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-15 23:04, Mark Filipak wrote:
>>>> On 15/06/2024 23.39, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-15 19:27, Mark Filipak wrote:
>>>>>> It would be nice if folks from here went here:
>>>>>> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/11055
>>>>>> and saw what is going on. It's up to 76 comments now, so what I ask will take you a while.
>>>>>> What's going on is a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the crime, detective?  All I see is two people talking past each other and not being 
>>>>> clear about their evidence. I posted a comment with my feedback for you two.
>>>>
>>>> You posted an irrelevant comment supporting inadmissible info from one of the accused: FFprobe 
>>>> show_frames.
>>>
>>> _Who_ posted the criminal comment (the comment you describe as "What's going on is a crime")?  
>>> _I_ posted it?  Check again.
>>
>> No, Jim. I posted "it's a crime" here way before your comment on ticket 11055.…

That means, it has nothing to do with you.

> Precisely. I did not appreciate that your reply to me, "you posted an irrelevant comment…", maligned 
> me as the author of what you did not like.

I'm very sorry if you felt maligned. Of course that was not intended. It wasn't a matter of liking. 
I like you, Jim, and I appreciate you, of all people, I appreciate you. It was a matter of you 
supporting MasterQuestionable's use of FFprobe to create (bogus) evidence. FFprobe is on trial. 
MasterQuestionable used FFprobe to claim that FFprobe is not in error. You didn't object. You 
supported it.

> I'm trying to help you here. Your mistaken hostility in 
> reply is reducing the amount of help you get.

Show me. Show me where/when I showed hostility.

>> It doesn't matter, Jim. Do I have to find EVERY problem?…
> 
> No. This is a project with volunteer contributions. You don't have to find ANY problems. Contribute 
> to the extent you wish.

That's Kumbaya, Jim.

> You did find one problem, and started a bug ticket about it. Good. But, you have not yet finished 
> that one job.

I did the best I could.

> You are being offered advice and help to turn that ticket into a complete report, 
> which describes the problem in a way that helps others investigate. Finishing that one job is not 
> the same as having to find EVERY problem.

No. I believe you wanted me to explain open GOP. It was irrelevant to the time stamp problem. If I 
preemptively explain every aspect, I'd be writing a book. Look at my audience: FFmpeg developers. 
They don't need me to preach to them.

> I suspect you would benefit if someone were to diagnose and fix this issue you found.  You don't 
> yourself have the expertise to do that. Fine. However, I think you are capable of completing that 
> ticket.

I did the best I could.

> If you do complete it, and cooperate with others who show up to help, you might make a fix 
> more likely. Instead, to those who are interested in the issue, you are mostly reacting with 
> hostility.  That is making a fix less likely.

There's that "hostility" word again.

>> …This all stinks and I'm sick of it.… I don't give a damn if FFmpeg wants to bury the news and 
>> leave everything unchanged. I'm finished with it. I got no support here and I see the picture 
>> clearly.
> 
> There is a saying, you get out what you put in.

Why not prepare a bug report in congress, so everyone can participate, so all aspects are covered to 
everyone's satisfaction. I worked alone, for 2 weeks on it. I asked for help many times.