On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:21 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2018-12-18 18:17 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:17 PM Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > 2018-12-17 7:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > >> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 03:02 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> 2018-12-17 1:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> > >> > So as far as it's been possible to test this, that's been done > >> > >> > >> > >> Could you point me to a dva1 sample? > >> > > > >> > > I have not seen any dolby vision samples with avc in the wild. > >> > > You can ask Vittorio if he has some as he noted about > >> > > possibly being able to ask for some before. > >> > > >> > The patch is of course ok if Vittorio tested it with his samples. > >> > > >> > Thank you, Carl Eugen > >> > >> Unfortunately I have no idea what samples Vittorio does or does not > >> possess, he has only mentioned off-hand that he might able to get hold > >> of some if required. And since you were the one requiring them, I > >> pointed you towards him. > >> > >> For myself, I am happy with the following points regarding this: > >> 1. The identifiers are registered at the MPEG-4 RA. > >> 2. There is a proper specification for these mappings that is > >> seemingly kept up-to-date. > >> 3. The mappings specification specifically notes that the only > >> difference between the AVC and HEVC identifiers are the semantics > >> mentioned in ISO/IEC 14496-15. We already have all of the identifiers > >> specified which these mappings are based upon, so those semantics > >> should not matter to us (and if they do, we have already broken those > >> constraints at this point). > >> 4. The mapping specification specifically notes that the given AVC and > >> HEVC identifiers must also include the standard avcC and hvcC boxes so > >> that they can be decoded normally without any additional custom code. > >> 5. We have samples for at least one of the four identifiers that > >> matches points 1 to 4. > >> 6. Android, Chromium, VLC among others have already implemented these > >> identifiers in the same way. > >> > >> Now, if you are not happy with these points, then please clearly state > >> that you are blocking any and all additional identifier additions - no > >> matter how specified - as long as there are no samples on hand for > >> them. > > > > After taking a second look at this sentence, I find this wording being > > loaded and antagonizing. It was unprofessional, and I apologize for > > it. > > > > But the wish underneath was to get a clear view into what it was it > > that you wanted. That was what was mostly clouded for me in your > > replies, and that annoyed me to no end. > > > > While I must say that I would have been happy if you had told me you > > were not blocking the patch (set), I did not want a specific outcome > > out of this sentence. I just wanted you to voice your level of > > discomfort with the patch (set) and to voice your current wishes > > regarding it. I had set my wishes on the table with the six points, > > and why I believed the patch (set) was fine as it was. > > > > That is why after I wrote this post I asked Michael what it was that > > was the procedure for cases where developers have seemingly > > irreconcilable differences in opinions regarding a patch set. I did > > not know if that was the case, but the main point was that in the > > unfortunate case that the patch was blocked, and we did not agree on > > some points heavily enough that we could not co-operate, that the next > > step could be taken right away so as to not have the patch (set) sit > > there untouched for another week or two. > > > > Unfortunately, you did not respond to or touch this sentence at all, > > which I then interpreted as your comments not being blockers. > > > I hope this makes my intentions and annoyances clear. > > Afaict, it contradicts what you wrote on irc yesterday. > > > I hope that in > > the future we can continue to co-operate, and that this makes it clear > > that I do not have any personal grievances nor a vendetta against you. > > Carl Eugen
Feel free to quote the parts that you think contradict. Jan _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
