[MPlayer-cvslog] r26411 - trunk/libmpdemux/demuxer.c

[Robert Swain]

On 31 May 2008, at 22:26, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:16:54PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:52:46PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:13:56PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 09:59:30PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 20:11 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:12:50AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Diego wanted the other spelling as he had just changed it that  
>>>>>>> way. Yet
>>>>>>> Iive changed the spelling back without any discussion, not  
>>>>>>> even flaming
>>>>>>> that would have indicated there would be no agreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> iive discussed as much as diego did, that was bad in both cases  
>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> What Diego did was OK, what Ivan did was not.
>>>>
>>>> No, that is just your personal oppinion
>>>
>>> Um, we can discuss the libmpcodecs changes, but the other parts were
>>> documentation related for which
>>> 1) Diego is (at least inofficially) the maintainer
>>> 2) It is his job to keep the documentation consistent
>>> 3) For documentation it was decided that Xvid is the correct  
>>> spelling
>>>
>>> Now, Ivan did not notice 3) I guess, nor had much reason to read the
>>> documentation lately, so I will not throw blame in that direction  
>>> either
>>
>> hmm, i was unaware of 3) myself, though i think diego even  
>> mentioned it in
>> the flames today ...
>
> Well, I do not want to claim how much it was discussed anyway, but I  
> do
> remember it, and I think the situation was even less clear back  
> then, I
> think even the homepage was inconsistent back then, which AFAICT it is
> no longer. Everything IIRC, if nothing else take this just as an
> explanation how things can come to be viewed very differently, even if
> only through bad memory (e.g. it might be the major part of the
> discussion/research was on IRC, in which case you can not have known  
> of
> it).

Not that it's worth much, nor do I care, but I always preferred 'XviD'  
though I do remember 'Xvid' being made the consistent spelling.  
Whichever is chosen, I don't think it really matters. It's not like  
either has a particularly functional or documentation-al benefit to  
the project. Even if it were inconsistent people would still be able  
to comprehend that 'Xvid'/'XviD' was the external project in question.

Rob