tis 2022-12-13 klockan 12:48 + skrev Derek Buitenhuis:
> On 12/13/2022 12:44 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> > I'll push with the internal symbol renames removed later today
> > if nobody objects.
>
> [...]
>
> > -const URLProtocol ff_ipfs_protocol = {
> > - .name = "ipfs",
>
On 12/13/2022 12:44 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> I'll push with the internal symbol renames removed later today
> if nobody objects.
[...]
> -const URLProtocol ff_ipfs_protocol = {
> -.name = "ipfs",
> +const URLProtocol ff_ipfs_gateway_protocol = {
> +.name
On 12/12/2022 3:48 PM, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> I agree verbosity is better here
I'll push with the internal symbol renames removed later today
if nobody objects.
- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
fre 2022-12-09 klockan 15:52 + skrev Derek Buitenhuis:
> On 12/9/2022 3:45 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > -static int ipfs_read(URLContext *h, unsigned char *buf, int
> > > size)
> > > +static int ipfs_gateway_read(URLContext *h, unsigned char *buf,
> > > int size)
> >
> > There is no need
Derek Buitenhuis (12022-12-09):
> My intent was to rename in case we ever got an actual IPFS implementation,
> but I have no strong opinion on whether to keep this part of the patch or
> not.
Even if we do, the names are local, they do not conflict.
> My personal preference is verbosity here,
On 12/9/2022 3:45 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
>> -static int ipfs_read(URLContext *h, unsigned char *buf, int size)
>> +static int ipfs_gateway_read(URLContext *h, unsigned char *buf, int size)
>
> There is no need to rename local symbols.
My intent was to rename in case we ever got an actual IPFS
Derek Buitenhuis (12022-12-09):
> It is a URL rewriter for IPFS gateways, not an actual implementation of
> IPFS, and naming it as such was both incorrect and misleading.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derek Buitenhuis
> ---
> As was discussed at the developer meeting last week, presented here for
>
It is a URL rewriter for IPFS gateways, not an actual implementation of
IPFS, and naming it as such was both incorrect and misleading.
Signed-off-by: Derek Buitenhuis
---
As was discussed at the developer meeting last week, presented here for
comments.
Personally I think libavformat is no
