[MPlayer-dev-eng] printf -> mp_msg conversion (etc.), first patches

[The Wanderer]

D Richard Felker III wrote:

> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:36:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>>>> The third patch removes all functional printfs from mencoder.c.
>>> 
>>> Agree, except IMO you shouldn't change fprintf(stderr, ...) to
>>> MSGL_ERROR. Just use MSGL_FIXME like everything else.
>> 
>> My reasoning was that changing it like that loses information - the
>> original was targeted at stderr, and just using FIXME for it means
>> the prospective fixer can't tell something which was
>> fprintf(stderr, ...) from something which was printf(...). If you
>> think it's important enough, however, I can go back and correct
>> them.
> 
> IMO the original was targetted at stderr because the person who wrote
> those lines was competent and realized that ALL messages should go
> to stderr, so stdout could (hypothetically in the future) be used as
> the output file. Once you fix it to everything goes thru mp_msg, we
> can make an option to send all messages to stderr, and then this will
> be a reality.
> 
> In any case, the messages in question are not errors, so they 
> shouldn't be MSGL_ERROR.

Acknowledged; makes sense; hadn't realized that they weren't errors
(many of them look error-y enough to me); will change and resend.

Do any of the MSGTRs I mentioned need to be moved back to the souce
files to make an acceptable patch, or will making the MSGL_ERR-related
changes be enough?

>> Should I separate the printf -> mp_msg changes and the string moves
>> into different patches, in the future? Doing so would slow me down,
>> since I would have to go through files twice (and, unless I've
>> missed something, wait for the first to be committed before
>> beginning work on the second), but it might be worth it.
> 
> IMO yes, they should be separate. It's not as hard as you think to do
> it in 2 passes. Just look at the diff file for a list of locations
> you need to go back to. Also you can just diff your two edits
> directly, rather than using cvs diff, so you don't have to wait to
> make the second patch set.

Actually, I'm making the diffs directly now (a nice little brain-dead
script for the purpose), and the two types of changes were made in two
passes for this patch as well; I just didn't remember to make a diff
before starting the second pass. The trouble is that unless I make the
second set of changes to a *third* copy of the source file, made after
applying the first set of changes, the second diff will include all of
the changes made in the first. It's bothersome enough (and IMO puts
enough of a feels-unnecessary extra load on the CVS server) to keep two
copies of the source tree, one for use (and making diffs against) and
one for edits; I don't want to try to keep three.

Or am I doing something completely wrong?

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.