2018-12-18 18:24 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > 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.
I was under the assumption you had read this: [21:26:03 CET] <durandal_1707> carl just officially approved your patch with single condition to mention ticket #7347 But re-reading it, there was no indication you actually understood what Paul wrote (or even read it), so sorry if I was wrong. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
