[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] add support of compression algorithm 3 in mkv demuxer

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:45:06PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:14:24PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 01:49:09PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 01:37:46PM +0200, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
>> > > > > I thought my original message was pretty clear. Here is the relevant
>> > > > > quote:
>> > > > >   BTW: you broke rules 6 and 9 in your recent commit to demux_mkv
>> > > > >   (which I maintain). I was pretty hangry seeing this.
>> > > > > If he didn't broke rule 6, I obviously wouldn't have complained about
>> > > > > rule 9.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nothing is as obvious from what you wrote as you seem to assume.  We
>> > > > have plenty of precedents for adding consts all over.
>> > >
>> > > Huh? What are you trying to say?? The "precedents" are at best for rule
>> > > 9, but I am not ever sure about that, few well maintained areas needed
>> > > changes in that regard, also because after the first "frenzy" quite a
>> > > few maintainers checked their code themselves.
>> >
>> > I am saying that Aurelien's message sounded as if he was complaining
>> > about somebody committing to "his" code.
>>
>> I thought so, but I don't understand what the
>> "We have plenty of precedents for adding consts all over."
>> has to do with that.
>
> It means that complaining about adding consts is silly to begin with and
> even more silly when we have had plenty of precedents of similar commits
> by others, you among them.
>
>> Rule 9 as written is probably written more strict than it is used,
>
> Most definitely.
>
>> but I doubt many agree with anything more open than
>> "Do NOT commit non-trivial or cosmetic changes to code actively maintained"...
>> and honestly these rules IMO are mostly an approximation of reality
>> to give new developers some simple rules to follow.
>
> I don't think strict code ownership is a good idea, especially when so
> few areas are maintained with any useful degree of activity.  In any
> case the rule does not reflect reality.

The reality is that you and Uoti do whatever you want without anybody
else been able to question your actions or stop you.