Le sunnuntaina 6. elokuuta 2023, 22.53.23 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > > > > Did you ask people to do that? > > > > > > yes, multiple times. > > > Also normally patch objections come with a path forward, that was not > > > the case here. > > > > Not necessarily, sometimes preventing a bad idea from happening is a > > positive thing in itself, and no path forward is needed. > > That is missing that people suggest a path forward but > with too few details to easily walk that path.
Uh, I hate to state the patently obvious, but if "no path forward is needed", then there should logically be _no_ "details to walk [a] path". Conversely, if avradio does not belong in FFmpeg, as Kieran, Tomas and others have been arguing, then there is no path forward to be given on FFmpeg-devel. And besides I don't think it's even fair to state that "too few details" were given. People did suggest making this a new separate project properly isolated from FFmpeg internals, and/or joining efforts with existing OSS SDR projects rather than FFmpeg. Some specific projects have even been cited. As far as FFmpeg(-devel) is concerned, I can't think how it could/should reasonably get any more specific than that. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ _______________________________________________ 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".
