On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:37:56AM +0200, ods15@ods15.dyndns.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:56:32PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 02:40:07AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
transmit_ts or your other proposal? I think I like transmit_ts better
transmit_ts
but I'd like to know the motivations behind how the decision is made
Motivation, it seems transmit_ts or someting equivalent is needed for efficient broadcast. Your suggestion of keeping the buffer at an average is less efficient. And buffer_fullness is sensitive to packet loss.
rather than a decision being made by default when no one discusses it. Even though this is not a feature I'm particularly interested in.
Well what else should we do? Theres a problem, we know a solution, noone else suggested an equally efficient alternative. I dont have a proof that there is no better alternative. If we wait indefinitly the problem just wont be solved. And waiting while there are zero discussions wont lead to a new alternative being proposed ...
Could you present the exact patch again? I'd like to remember the exact syntax you intended. Did we decide on an "is_broadcast" flag?
Besides the syntax which I would like to see before approving, I have no objections.
attached [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Frequently ignored awnser#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML. And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.