On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:50 PM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Vittorio Giovara (12023-11-06): > > world, please make a minimum of effort to keep communication polite > > Please realize that politeness resides not only in which words we use, > like “bullshit”, but also in what we say, even if it is with very mild > words. For example: > > > while you insisted it wasn't there > > Pretending I said something when I said precisely the opposite is > extremely rude from you. > > Or: > > > That is not how it works, you cannot indefinitely veto a patch > > Pretending that I try to veto a patch when I am just demanding the time > to properly review it is extremely rude from you. > Nice try but pointing out your logical fallacies is not being rude, but rather is just showing you how easily your message can be misinterpreted, due to the aggressive and non-constructive way of communication you insist on using. And yes, asking for time when you yourself do not provide a timeline is equivalent to vetoing a patch (indefinitely too, since you yourself say you "will review this issue when [you] have the time", which could very well be never). I feel like, once again, we've exhausted this topic, and before delving into what is rude and what is time, let's get back to the technical merits of the patch. Please justify your objections to the proposed solution, provide proof that this patch is invalid, or send code that improves upon this. Thank you -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ 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".