Alexander Strasser (12020-08-16): > I dislike the negative name too, because like mentioned by Marton it > doesn't work well with overriding the option to turn it off. > > On one hand for this option in particular it wouldn't be that important, > on the other hand it will be something (new) developers will see when > writing tests and scratch their heads about it.
But I want new developers writing tests to see it and scratch their head! I want to scratch their heads and find a better way if implementing their test. It is one of the points of the patch: find where tests are inefficients and give an incentive to make them more efficient. And I want reviewers to see the option, and make a comment about it; tests lines are frequently long, a short option is easy to overlook. > I'm not convinced that using the long name on purpose is good here > or in general. > > 1. It would not be so great to have to invent convenient names for > every option that shouldn't be used "normally" > 2. If users want to use an option they will use it no matter how > long the name. (This is from experience, we had a very longish > and worse named option in MPlayer for a similar reason.) At least, it will make Carl Eugen's work easier, or whoever deals with user questions on the mailing list somewhat easier: if somebody uses the option and break their command line cluelessly, it will be easy to spot, even in the middle of half a page of scale= arithmetic formulas and unrelated encoding options. I am not adamant on the name. If somebody suggests something better and there is a consensus, I will change it, of course. But I think these are good points for a very visible name. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
