On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, 06:13 Rostislav Pehlivanov, <atomnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 October 2016 at 01:17, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, 20:05 Marton Balint, <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:36:27PM -0700, Carlos Fernandez Sanz > wrote: > > > >> From: Carlos Fernandez <car...@ccextractor.org> > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Carlos Fernandez <car...@ccextractor.org> > > > >> --- > > > >> libavcodec/avcodec.h | 1 + > > > >> libavcodec/codec_desc.c | 6 ++++++ > > > >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michael > > > > LGTM > > > > > > Pushed with a minor whitespace fix. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Marton > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > > > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > > > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > > > > > So all the objections to this patchset are now irrelevant are they? > > > > What a shameful way to run an Open Source project. > > > > Kieran > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > > > > That patch has been posted on the mailing list since July. You didn't reply > to any patch to say why you think it's a bad idea. You just said that it's > inappropriate once on IRC and didn't explain much as to why. You can't > really expect to convince someone like that. > The guy had to go through 14 versions to get something acceptable, which is > one of the most I've seen, and the reviewers did have to do a lot of work > to make it look fine. And I did look at the patch too and found nothing > really wrong with it. In fact SMPTE KLV is implemented in a similar way. > > > An open source project accepts a well reviewed patch, how is that shameful? > Also mature projects are either dead or no one really uses/works on them > willingly. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-October/200644.html The fact that the timestamps are unusable was never addressed. Just because KLV is like that, doesn't suddenly make two wrongs into a right. Getting patches merged by sheer attrition is a shameful way of "running" an open source project. Kieran _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel