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

[Diego Biurrun]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:58:34AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:04:14AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> [...]
> > Has it occurred to you that you might be overreacting in this case?
> 
> Has it occured to you that you always play things down when uoti is
> involved but you turn every tiny fly into a dinosour when its related to
> iive or arpi.

I could say the same about you and Ivan.  Well, you don't have the
pleasure of sharing IRC channels with him.  Why you have to drag Arpi
into the discussion now is beyond me.

> > > > Uoti committed a bunch of cosmetic cleanups of different types together
> > > > and labeled his commit as "indent".  That was not good and I dislike bad
> > > > commit messages more than the next guy, but it was not catastrophic.
> > > > Plus, it was neither malicious, nor intentional.  Uoti honestly did not
> > > > expect this to be controversial.
> > > > 
> > > > Then Reimar gets upset and heavy flaming, heavy even measured by MPlayer
> > > > standards, erupts.  I speak with Reimar, I speak with Uoti, Reimar
> > > > eventually calms down again.  As suggested by me, Uoti speaks with
> > > > Reimar, they decide to find a way to work better together with less
> > > > friction.
> > > > 
> > > > Everything should be fine and dandy again, should it not?  No, wait, of
> > > > course flaming has not subsided, but reached epic proportions instead.
> > > > The tides of the discussion go ever higher and none of the participants
> > > > is helping it in any way.  On the contrary, all sides are stubborn or
> > > > prone to flames or both and generally have a number of character traits
> > > > not conducive to resolving conflicts.
> > > > 
> > > > But what has really happened?  Whatever you may think of the policy, it
> > > > does not contain a paragraph that forbids committing different types of
> > > > cosmetic changes together.
> > > 
> > > It contains parts about not mixing cosmetics and functional changes it also
> > > contains parts about not commiting to code maintained by others and something
> > > about sending patches.
> > 
> > None of this applies in this particular case.
> 
> copy and paste below for your memory, this commit was to demux_mkv.c
> which has been written and is activly maintained by aurel

This one did not start the discussion.  Anyway, we have a ton of
precedents for committing consts right away, sending patches for this is
silly.  Plus, I split the patch myself, problem solved.  But no, this is
not enough, heads must roll.  How long did it take you to review that
patch?  You are a much better C coder than I am, I would be very much
surprised if it took you more than the few seconds I needed to review
it.

Diego