On 8/25/23 11:09, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le perjantaina 25. elokuuta 2023, 17.58.40 EEST Anton Khirnov a écrit :
And then sometimes an argument has been argued to death previously and
there is really no point to rehash it again and again. If people cannot
agree, they should refer to the TC, not brute force the review through
overwhelming insistance.
I think we just have different interpretations of the word
'constructive' here.
I certainly agree that some patches are just not acceptable - I certainly
did not mean to imply that there must be a way forward for all patches.
I think that you do not agree with the generally accepted meaning of
"constructive" in this context. By definition a review cannot be constructive,
as in helpful or conducive of a way forward, if it argues that there are no
ways forward.
Maybe you meant "supported" or "corroborated".
FWIW I read it the same way Anton did but if it's unclear then perhaps
it could be modified. Essentially, I think what's going on is we don't
want "NAK" without a reason. If you want to say a patch shouldn't make
it in, there should at least be a reason. Even if the reason is "this
API/module has no place in FFmpeg."
- Leo Izen (Traneptora)
_______________________________________________
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".
