[MPlayer-DOCS] CVS: main/DOCS/man/en mplayer.1,1.914,1.915

[Guillaume Poirier]

Hi,

On 4/16/05, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0100, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> >
> > Diego Biurrun a écrit :
> > >On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:48:33PM +0100, Jonas Jermann wrote:
> > >
> > >>I might have some time after that but it seems that the mplayer
> > >>documentation already maintained perfectly by you. :)
> > >
> > >Thanks, but it still needs quite a bit of work.  While the man page is
> > >reaching completeness, it's still mostly too terse and needs some polishing
> > >touches.
> >
> > Could you elaborate a bit maybe? What kind of improvements would you
> > like to be done? Longer/better descriptions of options? More examples in
> > the same sections as options descriptions?
> 
> Longer and better descriptions, yes.  Many things are very terse and
> thus hard to understand, especially the lavc section.

Ok, I'll have a look at that as time goes... But I must say the lavc
section has improved so much in the past month that I can't right now
think of any particular option that need improvement.... and maybe
it's because I got better at understanding them so I'm not the average
user anymore! ;-)
I'll see what I can do. Now that I'm subscribed to mencoder-users ML,
I have an opportunity to see how our users feel about it.


>  The DivX section
> is incomplete, but updating it is probably not worth it.  Maybe we
> should drop DivX support altogether.

I won't touch it. I don't use it, and divx.com doesn't ship any linux
version of its codec AFAIK.
I'm in favor of dropping it, but I guess as long as it's supposed to
work, why bother?


> Another point on the TODO is improving the MEncoder guide.  You have
> already started this by starting to merge Rich's guide.  Another thing
> that should be merged is DOCS/tech/encoding-tips.txt.  The parts that
> are still correct and useful should go to the XML, the rest to
> /dev/null.

Got that.


> > >And the XML documentation is really in for a big overhaul or a
> > >rewrite from the ground up.
> >
> > Wow... is it _that_ bad? I saw some really outdated informations, for
> > example, in the "codecs" file (the description of XviD for example, is,
> > I think, almost plain wrong).
> 
> Yes, several parts are outdated and/or incomplete.  I also think the
> structure is not the best, things could be presented differently in a
> more logical fashion.

OK. I agree.

> > I was wondering if I should update the XML doc when I see that some
> > informations are missing or wrong, without waiting for some comments on
> > the ML, while paying attention to feedbacks/comments I may receive about
> > this or that commit to further improve my commits?
> 
> Use your own judgement.  If you are unsure, post on the mailing list
> first, if you are confident, commit.

Ok.


> > In brief, could you tell me what you trust me for as I'm not a native
> > English speaker/writer?
> 
> Almost everything.  If you are unsure you can send patches to the ml
> first, so far you are getting plenty of reviews, which is a good sign.
> Otherwise we will review after the commit, which also worked fine so
> far.

Ok.

BTW, this answer took a loooonnng time to come... did you send it
through sourceforge.net mail system? :o)

Guillaume