On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 02:25:49 +0100 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:52:19AM +0100, wm4 wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:21:14 +0100 > > Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 2018-01-26 0:00 GMT+01:00 Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com>: > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > [...] > > > > > I'd also like to point out that it _did_ happen in the past that > > Michael went off tangents in patch reviews and asked for unreasonable > > extra work because of minor issues. > > Ive written a huge number of reviews over the years, and i certainly > did what you claim above in one of these many reviews. Not in the case > you refer here to though. And if it happens, that a unreasonable request > is made, discussion is whats needed. > In fact many developers have made requests that others have found > unreasonable. Many if not most of the more active developers have. > Its not a uncommon source of long discussions. And so we're having a long discussion again. You could just have left it alone. > > > > The AVFrame.opaque_ref fiasco > > (whose non-sensical later solution which he demanded was finally > > pushed, even though it still does not solve the issues he claimed his > > approach would solve) comes to mind, > > so much you say in here > ill skip over "non-sensical" and "demanded" these are not really true in > the way you present it here. The "demanded" was definitely true. You blocked my patch, even though it was just a Libav merge to begin with. There were never big discussions about such tiny merges before, and nobody would have given a shit had I pushed those merges directly to git (like it's normally done with merges). But you started a big discussion and eventually achieved that a sub-optimal solution was added. The current solution _is_ nonsense. There is now a semi-public field (AVFrame.private_ref) in a libavutil struct that can be used only by libavcodec, something which we always avoid, because the libraries are supposed to use only the public API of each other (except avpriv_ and headers). It still doesn't solve the problem you claimed there was: if libavcodec fails to "process" the private_ref contents, the returned frame to the user will be broken and make the user application crash. Oh, and of course the doxygen says AVFrame.private_ref can be used by other ffmpeg libs too. So what happens if libavfilter's use of private_ref clashes with libavcodec's? Please explain. Absolutely NOTHING is helped by using a separate field instead of opaque_ref, and you were the only one who insisted on doing this (the others at best unaware of the details and vaguely trusting your claims). You even ignored my solution, which was consistently checking all entrypoints for opaque_ref (and wrapping the user use of it), which my patches did. You didn't even care and somehow claimed there were holes in it, which there were not, and even if there were, YOUR CURRENT CODE WOULD FAIL TOO. At this point I seriously had enough of your shit and left the project for a while. > the solution choosen IIRC does indeed not achive everything. It was > in fact a compromise that resulted from the discussion of many developers. > IIRC a solution that would solve all teh listed issues was not liked by > multiple people Because apparently they still wanted it to be merged, so they just did whatever you wanted, whether it made sense or not. I on the other hand was seeking a solution that was technically closer to ideal. But it was impossible to get through you. > > and I considered his general > > conduct on this issue harassment (not like I'd get an apology). > > If anything i said felt like harrasment, i appologize. That said > a review or comment or objection to a patch is not harrasment and > I will continue to review and when it is needed object to changes. > > Maybe it is just my point of view here but you seem very sensitive > to anything that is not an approval of your changes. > While at the same time your replies are often aggressive or offensive. > > Just as random examples, your single line objection here certainly came > over in a passive aggressive tone: > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-January/224488.html That's not passive aggressive. You know certain devs (including me) don't like excessive logging code for fuzzing fixes, and that was extensively discussed in the past. But there you go again. (And sure, I can be convinced that the logging is actually OK in this specific case, but you preferred doing something else instead.) However, your reply was passive aggressive to the max: > > and your next reply, that basically told me farewell when i said that i > wouldnt continue to maintain or help maintain hevc when error messages > would have to be ommited (not one specific one but in general) > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-January/224506.html You basically threatened that you'd stop doing important work on hevc if you didn't get to add your error messages. Well, I ignored the threat and just told you to do draw your consequences out of the non-approval, if you really want to. I expect it was an empty threat anyway. Such "threats" are completely inappropriate in patch reviews. You realize the irony of threatening something like this, while your patch "reviews" made me leave the project for a while, right? > And that was just a day or 2 ago. > > The very mail here i reply to is then also accusing me of harrasment > in patch review from last year. I dont exactly enjoy having to reply > to these kind of accusations. More so considering how long ago the > review is that refers to. > > and on IRC 2 days ago > > Jän 25 23:47:53 <jamrial> <+wm4> also michaelni harassed me a lot in > the past (like making me go through all that pointless crap when getting rid > of the side data merging > Jän 25 23:48:02 <jamrial> can you drop that already? it was not > pointless > Jän 25 23:48:22 <jamrial> i was careless and did a merge wrong, and > google came out of the woodworks because i broke chromium > Jän 25 23:48:41 <jamrial> the abi concerns had a reason Definitely the side data merging ABI claim was completely pointless. If any application had a dependency on side data being merged, they would have broken on the ABI bump. I don't know what jamrial is referring to. Besides, packet contents were not considered ABI relevant before. My own project was once broken by a packet format change - so what? I just fixed it on my side. Sure, these technical points can be fuzzy and I might be wrong too. But it's not just about that. You fought pretty hard against my patches and invented all sorts of arguments. You accused me of trolling too. I didn't enjoy this interaction. How come you find my claims illegitimate, but if I tell you something as simple to drop the logging it's suddenly passive aggressive harassment. Come on? > I would really like to see these accusations stop, this is not something > anyone else that i remember has done in FFmpeg or Libav, not at this scale > at least. Well, you remember how half of the project forked off years ago because they were tired of your antics as project leader, right? That was pretty big scale wasn't it? I'm not threatening to fork ffmpeg as a project or anything close to it, nor do I want to unearth the Libav drama, but your claim is certainly a bit of an exaggeration. Anyway, I too would like if the harassment against me by you and CE would stop. On a related note, I know no other project that would tolerate CE's behavior at all. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
