[MPlayer-cvslog] r26897 - in trunk: AUTHORS DOCS/tech/MAINTAINERS DOCS/tech/encoding-guide.txt DOCS/tech/encoding-tips.txt configure etc/codecs.conf libmpcodecs/vd_xvid4.c libmpcodecs/ve_xvid4.c

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 5/29/08, Aurelien Jacobs <aurel at gnuage.org> wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:21:13AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:58:59AM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> > > On 5/28/08, Paul Arthur <flowerysong00 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > On 2008-05-27, The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> diego wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Log: cosmetics: XviD --> Xvid
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Did we hash this out at some point and conclude that that was the
>> > > >> correct spelling? I have been of the impression that "XviD" is
>> > > >> correct, for much the same reasons that "DivX" is correct.
>> > > >
>> > > > xvid.org seems to invariably capitalise it as 'Xvid'. Though I
>> > > > wasn't
>> > > > able to track down an official announcement in my cursory search, it
>> > > > appears that they changed it from 'XviD' sometime near the end of
>> > > > 2006.
>> > >
>> > > Xvid Solutions is formed by split of xvid developers, they inherited
>> > > XviD codec, but it is not further developed by them. They are working
>> > > on closed H.264 codec. When (and if) they release it, they can call it
>> > > Xvid 2.0.
>> > >
>> > > 
>> > > On a question in FreeNode #xvid 
>> > > <iive> ... what is the correct name of xvid - Xvid or XviD ?
>> > > <prunedtree> i'd say XviD, as it's DivX reversed
>> > > <prunedtree> and it looks much better in a logo
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > In the current cvs and the last release that was done after the change
>> > > of the website, all strings inside (documentation, headers and source)
>> > > refer to the codec as XviD.
>> > >
>> > > On that ground I see no reason why this change should have ever been
>> > > done.
>> > > I'm reverting it.
>> > 
>> > http://www.xvid.org/ disagrees, as does Wikipedia and and Google.
>> > 
>> > Not to mention that we have already settled on the Xvid spelling in most
>> > of the documentation a long time ago:
>> > 
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > r20876 | kraymer | 2006-11-13 09:53:20 +0100 (Mon, 13 Nov 2006) | 2
>> > lines
>> > Changed paths:
>> >    M /trunk/DOCS/man/en/mplayer.1
>> >    M /trunk/DOCS/xml/en/codecs.xml
>> >    M /trunk/DOCS/xml/en/encoding-guide.xml
>> >    M /trunk/DOCS/xml/en/faq.xml
>> >    M /trunk/DOCS/xml/en/mencoder.xml
>> > 
>> > rename: XviD -> Xvid
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 
>> > I'm glad to see you doing some useful work.  Restoring inconsistency was
>> > badly needed.  Thanks a bundle.
>> 
>> Oh, forgot to say: This is a clear violation of policy section II.9.

Actually the revert is not technically a commit,
as it doesn't introduce new code.
(I promise next time to try to preserve the svn blame history).

Moreover, I am still listed as maintainer of XviD code, 
and you committed your changes without following II.9.

Looking at the wording of II.9, it talks about code,
and this was a cosmetic change. Maybe this is why you
never follow II.9.
( Not that I like that literal interpretation ).

You have no ground to complain.


> Policy ?? Which policy ? I thought you had just abolished any kind of policy
> !
> (or at least refused to enforce it, which is basically the same)
>
> Did I misunderstood something ? I would be glad to hear a clear statement
> about this.

Me too. ;)

Somehow, I'm sure Diego won't have any doubts about who have the authority when it comes to revoke my write access for policy violation.