[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] Remove redundant XShmGetEventBase declaration

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 8/10/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 05:51:31PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> On 8/9/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:38:45PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 07:58:39PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> > Here is a patch to remove a redundant XShmGetEventBase declaration
>> >> > from
>> >> > libvo/vo_x11.c and libvo/vo_xvmc.c, which dates back to r2(!).  If
>> >> > this
>> >> > is really a problem, there should be a proper check in configure, not
>> >> > a
>> >> > hackish declaration duplicated over multiple files.
>> >>
>> >> Will apply on the weekend.
>> 
>> Revert or I will do it.
>
> I will not.  Myself, Uoti and Attila have spoken up in favor of this
> giving good reasons.  You failed to address, much less refute, our
> points.

I am in my right as maintainer to request your removal of hacks to 
be because you have fixed them properly, not because they are hacks. 


In case you haven't understood my previous mail.

I've never rejected that this redundant declaration is... questionable.
What I want is proper check, as you and Attila both propose in your mails.

On 8/2/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> [...] If this
> is really a problem, there should be a proper check in configure, not a
> hackish declaration duplicated over multiple files.

On 8/7/08, Attila Kinali <attila at kinali.ch> wrote:
> [...]
> And yes, if XShmGetEventBase is not declared on all systems (...),
> then there should be a configure time check for it.

I'm sure you understood quite well my request 
that your patch must contains configure check,
as your reply is:

On 8/7/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> Feel free to come up with one.

You see, I do not have to come up with one,
because I am not the one pushing for the change.

On top of that You are configure maintainer, 
You are much better suited to make Your changes there.

If You want to apply your patch then You must write it properly,
just like in Your own proposal.

I'm sure you've seen Michael use such policy in FFmpeg
and I am sure you know it works quite well.


You have 24 hours to come up with proper patch.
If you can't do it for 24 hours revert the change and make it part
of the patch when you are ready.


If you don't do that, then I would consider that your violations of the
rules means that the maintainer system is no longer valid, 
along with any rules I do not find reasonable (or do not like).