[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 5/30/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:18:34AM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> On 5/30/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:45:38AM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > lol
>> >
>> >> Moreover, I am still listed as maintainer of XviD code,
>> >> and you committed your changes without following II.9.
>> >
>> > You committed to 9 files of which you maintain 2 and I maintain 3.
>>
>> lol
>>
>> So you acknowledge that you violated II.9 ?
>
> There is a difference between committing spelling fixes for consistency
> and reverting commits without prior notice.  And you obviously did this
> against my will, I did not commit by accident.  If you had only reverted
> the changes to the files you maintain - fine.  But you chose to revert
> the files I maintain as well...

I don't see any difference.

If you want consistency, then fix the spelling of the documentation.