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

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:08:29PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:51:17PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:58:02AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > I know most of them personally, like them and the feeling is mutual.
> > > > > Nonetheless nowadays MPlayer is being developed by a new generation
> > > > > of people. That does not mean that the contributions of those people
> > > > > are insubstantial or that not appreciated.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes but it also does not mean that the experience the "old generation" has
> > > > collected over the years should be ignored like it is. The people not being
> > > > against uoti are new people who do not yet have the same
> > > > experience reimar, roberto, iive, ... have in respect to maintaining a
> > > > large project with many developers working, joining and leaving ...
> > > 
> > > Reimar never spoke in favor of removing Uoti.
> > 
> > Not litterally i think, but iam pretty sure he said something to the effect of
> > him being in favor of uoti being removed if theres no other solution being
> > found ...
> 
> .. i think .. pretty sure .. something to the effect of ..
> 
> He did not say anything like that literally, nor implied.  I was the one
> to talk to him personally, not you.  Let Reimar speak for himself, do not
> make guesses or assumptions about his opinions.

Yes please, reimar, maybe i remember wrong but my memory said you did in one
of these past flames with uoti on a public mailinglist say something to the
effect that it would be better under "some circumstances" to close his
account. As said i do not remember the exact wording ...
If you (reimar) dont remember it ill of course retract my statement.


[...]
> > Besides, hypocrite applies because you complain against iive while you really
> > did nearly the same to him.
> 
> No, I did not.  I did very much *not* revert his commits without any
> discussion or expressing dissent.

You commited to code maintained by him, he commited to code maintained by you
That part is the same ...


[...]

> > > > > How come that you don't have an issue with such behavior?
> > > > 
> > > > Lets see.
> > > > * I do not know at all if Xvid or XviD is more correct. I do know it was
> > > >   XviD once in the past so this one can not be completely wrong now.
> > > > * You changed the spelling to Xvid in files maintained by you and ivve
> > > > * iive changed the spelling back to XviD in files maintained by you and ivve
> > > > * he did the same you did, you started
> > > > * you broke the policy he reverted the commit which broke the policy
> > > > No the whole was not ideal but nothing bad happened we are just back at the
> > > > start and have another chance to find a solution. If the spelling bothers
> > > > you. Just start a discussion on mplayer-dev about it, like it should IMHO
> > > > have been in the first place already.
> > > 
> > > Are you seriously suggesting that we should waste time on dev-eng
> > > discussing which way to spell Xvid?  When this was hashed out and
> > > committed to the rest of the documentation in 2006?
> > 
> > If not then why are you complaining about iive changing it? Either it
> > does matter or it does not ...
> 
> I'll assume that you are neither playing one of your weird jokes again
> nor being deliberately dense and repeat my explanation:
> 
> I'm not complaining about Ivan making the change.  I'm not even
> complaining about Ivan reverting my changes to his files.  However, when
> he reverts the changes I just did to files I maintain without prior
> notice or discussion and without even making me aware that he disagrees
> with my changes, then this is obviously and knowingly being done against
> my wishes and intentions and is bound to provoke and stir up
> controversy.
> 
> I ask you again: Why is such behavior not objectionable to you?

Ivans behavior is objectionable to me but so was your original commit.
Why cant you and ivan not just accept that you both made a mistake by
taking an action that provocated the other, deliberate or not?


> 
> This is being done deliberately, 

I belive ivan thinks that of your commit as well.

Also if someone bumps into you and you spill your coffee all over your clothes
and you think that he did it deliberately and as a result you take the little
bit left in the cup and spill it over his head.

Who is the evil one?
The guy who did walk with his eyes on the secretary to his right who
unintentionally bumped into you or
You who now deliberately dumped the remaining brown liquid over his head?


> Uoti did not act deliberately in this
> way.  He did not expect any controversy.  The same cannot be said about
> Ivan.

I belive that ivan belives that you did it intentionally.
Besides you, ivan and uoti are all totally incapable of resolving the
controversy they caused non deliberately.

Neither of you is capable to just say "sorry, i thought that wouldnt be
controversal, ill revert and we can discuss what course of action that would
satisfy everyone involved"

Its because you all are a bunch of <censored> who all
know they are always correct and who dont yield 1 hairbreadth.


> 
> > > The problem I have with you here is that you are applying double
> > > standards.
> > > 
> > > On the one hand you insist on the strictest possible interpretation of
> > > the policy for issues that you care about like separation of whitespace
> > > changes from other types of changes and demand draconian punishments for
> > > offenders.
> > > 
> > > On the other hand you are very lax yourself about issues you consider
> > > less important like adding full license headers to files or updating the
> > > documentation to match your code changes.  You have behaved this way
> > > long before this incident, don't tell me it is a result of it.
> > > 
> > > That you then go on to call me - the person that goes out of its way to
> > > split commits to your liking, writes the documentation for you, etc. -
> > > a hypocrite is galling and does add insult to previous injury.
> > 
> > Well you care about spelling,  consistency, licenses, ...
> > i care about clean commits, ...
> > 
> > I do not care much about spelling,  consistency, licenses, ...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > You do not care much about clean commits
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> > Now you complain about me applying double standards while you do the very
> > same, just the other way around.
> 
> No, I do not have double standards.  I adapt to your wishes, as you very
> well know.  I have always done everything exactly according to your
> wishes in FFmpeg and changed whatever you did not like.  I commit
> nothing to MPlayer that you object to.
> 
> I am willing to give everybody a bit of leeway and the benefit of the
> doubt.  I even go the extra mile and do extra work *myself* to make
> everybody happy.
> 

> You, on the other hand, want to see heads roll the second somebody does
> something you disagree with, even if it is totally minor, as in this
> case.

you are confused, a single polite reply from uoti would have made a huge
difference to me. But the only thing he tells us is that he is correct
that the policy is irrelevant and that he will act by only his common
sense. And that he of course never made any mistake and will never
correct any commit others complain about ...
(of course except the commit message noone complained about except himself)

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

It is not what we do, but why we do it that matters.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-cvslog/attachments/20080531/e5192718/attachment.pgp>