CVS change done by Ivan Kalvachev CVS Update of /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS/man/en In directory mail:/var2/tmp/cvs-serv4340/DOCS/man/en Modified Files: mplayer.1 Log Message: remove unused cache-prefill and create cache-seek-min that controls when seek_long is prefered over waiting for cache to fill Index: mplayer.1 =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS/man/en/mplayer.1,v retrieving revision 1.1056 retrieving revision 1.1057 diff -u -r1.1056 -r1.1057 --- mplayer.1 30 Jul 2005 03:04:35 -0000 1.1056 +++ mplayer.1 31 Jul 2005 00:26:05 -0000 1.1057 @@ -818,9 +818,10 @@ of the total. . .TP -.B \-cache-prefill <percentage> (not yet implemented) -When the cache is emptied MPlayer will pause and restart playback when -the cache prefill threshold set with this option is reached. +.B \-cache-seek-min <percentage> (not yet implemented) +If seek is to be done and it is within seek-min range, MPlayer will wait +cache to be filled to this position rather than performing an stream seek. +(default:50) . .TP .B \-cdda <option1:option2> (CDDA only)
Ivan Kalvachev CVS wrote:
Modified Files: mplayer.1 Log Message: remove unused cache-prefill and create cache-seek-min that controls when seek_long is prefered over waiting for cache to fill
-.B \-cache-prefill <percentage> (not yet implemented) -When the cache is emptied MPlayer will pause and restart playback when -the cache prefill threshold set with this option is reached. +.B \-cache-seek-min <percentage> (not yet implemented) +If seek is to be done and it is within seek-min range, MPlayer will wait +cache to be filled to this position rather than performing an stream seek. +(default:50)
I see a couple of grammar problems here, but before I fix them: what is meant by "within seek-min range"? My best guess would be "within <percentage> percentage points of the current position", but I don't know whether or not that's correct. -- 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.
On 7/31/05, The Wanderer <inverseparadox@comcast.net> wrote:
Ivan Kalvachev CVS wrote:
Modified Files: mplayer.1 Log Message: remove unused cache-prefill and create cache-seek-min that controls when seek_long is prefered over waiting for cache to fill
-.B \-cache-prefill <percentage> (not yet implemented) -When the cache is emptied MPlayer will pause and restart playback when -the cache prefill threshold set with this option is reached. +.B \-cache-seek-min <percentage> (not yet implemented) +If seek is to be done and it is within seek-min range, MPlayer will wait +cache to be filled to this position rather than performing an stream seek. +(default:50)
I see a couple of grammar problems here, but before I fix them: what is meant by "within seek-min range"? My best guess would be "within <percentage> percentage points of the current position", but I don't know whether or not that's correct.
newpos-oldpos < seek-min * cache-size/100;
Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
On 7/31/05, The Wanderer <inverseparadox@comcast.net> wrote:
Ivan Kalvachev CVS wrote:
Modified Files: mplayer.1 Log Message: remove unused cache-prefill and create cache-seek-min that controls when seek_long is prefered over waiting for cache to fill
-.B \-cache-prefill <percentage> (not yet implemented) -When the cache is emptied MPlayer will pause and restart playback when -the cache prefill threshold set with this option is reached. +.B \-cache-seek-min <percentage> (not yet implemented) +If seek is to be done and it is within seek-min range, MPlayer will wait +cache to be filled to this position rather than performing an stream seek. +(default:50)
I see a couple of grammar problems here, but before I fix them: what is meant by "within seek-min range"? My best guess would be "within <percentage> percentage points of the current position", but I don't know whether or not that's correct.
newpos-oldpos < seek-min * cache-size/100;
So I was essentially right. Thank you; if you have any objections to my rephrasing, which will be committed shortly, don't hesitate to let me know what's 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.
On 7/31/05, The Wanderer <inverseparadox@comcast.net> wrote:
Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
On 7/31/05, The Wanderer <inverseparadox@comcast.net> wrote:
Ivan Kalvachev CVS wrote:
Modified Files: mplayer.1 Log Message: remove unused cache-prefill and create cache-seek-min that controls when seek_long is prefered over waiting for cache to fill
-.B \-cache-prefill <percentage> (not yet implemented) -When the cache is emptied MPlayer will pause and restart playback when -the cache prefill threshold set with this option is reached. +.B \-cache-seek-min <percentage> (not yet implemented) +If seek is to be done and it is within seek-min range, MPlayer will wait +cache to be filled to this position rather than performing an stream seek. +(default:50)
I see a couple of grammar problems here, but before I fix them: what is meant by "within seek-min range"? My best guess would be "within <percentage> percentage points of the current position", but I don't know whether or not that's correct.
newpos-oldpos < seek-min * cache-size/100;
So I was essentially right. Thank you; if you have any objections to my rephrasing, which will be committed shortly, don't hesitate to let me know what's wrong.
How about seeing your text before you commit it?
Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
On 7/31/05, The Wanderer <inverseparadox@comcast.net> wrote:
Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
newpos-oldpos < seek-min * cache-size/100;
So I was essentially right. Thank you; if you have any objections to my rephrasing, which will be committed shortly, don't hesitate to let me know what's wrong.
How about seeing your text before you commit it?
Too late, I'm afraid... already committed. Sorry... the potential for this kind of "you should have waited" is why I kept making my previous type of "here's a suggestion" replies, and when I got told "you can just commit these without waiting for discussion", apparently I swing too far in the other direction. -- 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.
Hi, On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:10:23PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Too late, I'm afraid... already committed. Sorry... the potential for this kind of "you should have waited" is why I kept making my previous type of "here's a suggestion" replies, and when I got told "you can just commit these without waiting for discussion", apparently I swing too far in the other direction.
IMHO not. This is not like with code where a little error can break the whole program, or where it is important to have clean diffs between the revisions, so I can't really see much point in posting most DOCS patches before applying, you can comment as well on the cvslog mail (as long as you ignore the fact that reverting/fixing that commit later is some work too *g*). Greetings, Reimar Döffinger
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
Hi, On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:10:23PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Too late, I'm afraid... already committed. Sorry... the potential for this kind of "you should have waited" is why I kept making my previous type of "here's a suggestion" replies, and when I got told "you can just commit these without waiting for discussion", apparently I swung too far in the other direction.
IMHO not. This is not like with code where a little error can break the whole program, or where it is important to have clean diffs between the revisions, so I can't really see much point in posting most DOCS patches before applying, you can comment as well on the cvslog mail (as long as you ignore the fact that reverting/fixing that commit later is some work too *g*).
If the patch is extensive, and/or you're unsure about its contents, and/or you want it proofread (etc.), then there can be a point to getting comments before applying. Thanks for the input, though; I'm still trying to work out where the boundary is, and various people's viewpoints can be helpful. -- 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.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:34:36PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:10:23PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Too late, I'm afraid... already committed. Sorry... the potential for this kind of "you should have waited" is why I kept making my previous type of "here's a suggestion" replies, and when I got told "you can just commit these without waiting for discussion", apparently I swing too far in the other direction.
IMHO not. This is not like with code where a little error can break the whole program,
Agree.
or where it is important to have clean diffs between the revisions,
It's preferable to have clean diffs for the docs as well.
so I can't really see much point in posting most DOCS patches before applying, you can comment as well on the cvslog mail (as long as you ignore the fact that reverting/fixing that commit later is some work too *g*).
I agree. The Wanderer has proven his value for the documentation already, that's why we gave him CVS access and I trust his commits not to be of lower quality than those of the other documentation contributors. If there are problems or suggestions for further improvements, we can discuss the commits as we usually do. Diego
participants (5)
-
Diego Biurrun -
Ivan Kalvachev -
Reimar Döffinger -
syncmail＠mplayerhq.hu -
The Wanderer