Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 11:22:40AM -0600, Leo Izen wrote: > On 12/21/23 21:32, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > Can you think of a way to add some lines of code to this that makes it more > > maintainable ? > > > > if yes, then i think you proofed that adding code can reduce maintaince > > burden > > > > thx > > > > This is clearly not the point here. The point is that an in-house module has > to be maintained, and removing that module removes the maintenance burden. > An international obfuscated C contest entry isn't really on-topic. You snipped the whole discussion this was a reply to and argue in a different context. The claim was: > > > [...] , but every line of code > > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden And the text you replied to was part of sketching a proof that the claim was false. If you make a different claim, yes, you need a different proof. So what is the new claim ? "The point is that an in-house module has to be maintained, and removing that module removes the maintenance burden." This is true, IF you ignore that "removing that module" has lead to loss of developers, should lead to loss of users and also a higher burden on the end user, who then may have to compile various external dependancies and maintain these with security updates. OR maybe the end user would have to choose between 2 forks depending in what feature she wants. If one, for sake of argument would say the removial of any module would be good, then the optimum is 0 modules. Thats clearly not optimal so that would be abusrd So we know removial cannot always be optimal. That also means it must be a good thing sometimes to have what you call additional "maintenance burden" thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB it is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world. -- Aristotle signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On 12/21/23 21:32, Michael Niedermayer wrote: Can you think of a way to add some lines of code to this that makes it more maintainable ? if yes, then i think you proofed that adding code can reduce maintaince burden thx This is clearly not the point here. The point is that an in-house module has to be maintained, and removing that module removes the maintenance burden. An international obfuscated C contest entry isn't really on-topic. - Leo Izen (Traneptora) ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:22 PM Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 04:11:30PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > > Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > > > Nah, NIH is bad. > > > > Then you need to find a different project. FFmpeg exists because a > > genius hacker decided to NIH a MPEG software decoder. > > Please stop attacking Tomas! > > FFmpeg exists because many people, many who have different > views work together. > > About MXF i agree with you and disagree with Tomas but that can be > stated in a technical way without offending anyone. > > And just recently Tomas helped with jpeg2000, you can find the patches > he reviewed ... > > theres absolutely no sense in this personal attack on others! > > PS (off topic): if you want everyone to work on one MXF codebase, everyone > is > welcome to join FFmpeg :) > Merry Christmas ! > > thx > > PS: we have christmess (and happy christmess btw to everyone) > 12-24 is not holmgang ;) > > [...] > > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. > Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart > than the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better. > ___ > 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". > ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
sön 2023-12-24 klockan 18:21 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 04:11:30PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > > Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > > > Nah, NIH is bad. > > > > Then you need to find a different project. FFmpeg exists because a > > genius hacker decided to NIH a MPEG software decoder. > > Please stop attacking Tomas! I actually find it amusing > PS: we have christmess (and happy christmess btw to everyone) > 12-24 is not holmgang ;) Yesterday was Festivus! /Tomas ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 04:11:30PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > > Nah, NIH is bad. > > Then you need to find a different project. FFmpeg exists because a > genius hacker decided to NIH a MPEG software decoder. Please stop attacking Tomas! FFmpeg exists because many people, many who have different views work together. About MXF i agree with you and disagree with Tomas but that can be stated in a technical way without offending anyone. And just recently Tomas helped with jpeg2000, you can find the patches he reviewed ... theres absolutely no sense in this personal attack on others! PS (off topic): if you want everyone to work on one MXF codebase, everyone is welcome to join FFmpeg :) thx PS: we have christmess (and happy christmess btw to everyone) 12-24 is not holmgang ;) [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart than the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > Nah, NIH is bad. Then you need to find a different project. FFmpeg exists because a genius hacker decided to NIH a MPEG software decoder. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 3:33 PM Tomas Härdin wrote: > sön 2023-12-24 klockan 13:12 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > > Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > > > But I'd prefer if it were replaced by bmxlib. > > > > Yes, we know that you have not understood that the raison d'être of > > FFmpeg is to IMPLEMENT natively all multimedia formats and protocols > > and > > the utility code they need, not be a mere collection of wrappers. > > Nah, NIH is bad. It is a waste of labour power. It cuts down on hammock > time. > Yes, you are always correct, not. ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
sön 2023-12-24 klockan 13:12 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > > But I'd prefer if it were replaced by bmxlib. > > Yes, we know that you have not understood that the raison d'être of > FFmpeg is to IMPLEMENT natively all multimedia formats and protocols > and > the utility code they need, not be a mere collection of wrappers. Nah, NIH is bad. It is a waste of labour power. It cuts down on hammock time. /Tomas ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On 12/24/2023 9:12 AM, Nicolas George wrote: Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): But I'd prefer if it were replaced by bmxlib. Yes, we know that you have not understood that the raison d'être of FFmpeg is to IMPLEMENT natively all multimedia formats and protocols and the utility code they need, not be a mere collection of wrappers. Can you please stop with the personal attacks? You gain nothing, and the entire discussion just goes down the drain. This mail should have simply been about stating that native modules are always preferred over external dependencies. ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Tomas Härdin (12023-12-24): > But I'd prefer if it were replaced by bmxlib. Yes, we know that you have not understood that the raison d'être of FFmpeg is to IMPLEMENT natively all multimedia formats and protocols and the utility code they need, not be a mere collection of wrappers. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
fre 2023-12-22 klockan 10:09 -0300 skrev James Almer: > On 12/21/2023 5:05 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 8:43 PM Tomas Härdin > > wrote: > > > > > ons 2023-12-20 klockan 20:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > > > > tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > > > > [...] > > > > > [...] , but every line of code > > > > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden > > > > > > > > Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" > > > > maintenance > > > > burden > > > > > > > > then we can proof this to be false > > > > > > Doubt > > > > > > > What iam trying to say is, the maintaince burden resulting from > > > > a > > > > change > > > > is complex > > > > > > Indeed > > > > > > > In this specific case here we have a patch proposing the > > > > removial of > > > > a decoder > > > > missing a test. > > > > Its easy to say the burden is less when the decoder is removed > > > > But its author recently left the project too > > > > > > This is one problem. But the careless attitude to shoving more > > > features > > > into the codebase is far more serious. Every line of code is a > > > CVE > > > waiting to happen. Apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp > > > for > > > some contributors. It's an attitude I expect only from junior > > > developers. > > > > > > Ensuring C code is correct and safe is *hard*. I have spent time > > > formally verifying embedded C code for spaceflight. The lessons > > > learned > > > from this has made me supremely suspicious of cowboy coding. > > > > > > I have raised this issue multiple times in this project to no > > > avail. I > > > do not expect things to change. > > > > > > > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. > > First of all, this was completely uncalled for. Second, mxf support > in > lavf is pretty much thanks to him. I will add that Baptiste is mostly to thank for it. But I'd prefer if it were replaced by bmxlib. This would allow concentrating MXF dev effort on a single project. But already at the concept stage there has been opposition to this. /Tomas ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Hi Nicolas On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:31:00PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Paul B Mahol (12023-12-21): > > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. > > I did not want to say it, but since it is now in the open: Not nothing: > negative. Just because someone attacks someone else doesnt make it ok to join an attack/insult/... Not only is it bad for the person being attacked (and we all have been at the receiving end of attacks too) But theres also the issue that companies avoid interacting with the FFmpeg community, and avoid contributing thus because of these threads that devolve a bit. > His naysaying discouraged me from working further on the > built-in documentation system. Thats bad, what can we do about this ? I think all developers should be able to work on any part they want to. Of course if there are disagreements then compromise or TC decission may be needed. thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. -- Lao Tsu signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On 12/21/2023 5:05 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 8:43 PM Tomas Härdin wrote: ons 2023-12-20 klockan 20:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: [...] [...] , but every line of code carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" maintenance burden then we can proof this to be false Doubt What iam trying to say is, the maintaince burden resulting from a change is complex Indeed In this specific case here we have a patch proposing the removial of a decoder missing a test. Its easy to say the burden is less when the decoder is removed But its author recently left the project too This is one problem. But the careless attitude to shoving more features into the codebase is far more serious. Every line of code is a CVE waiting to happen. Apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp for some contributors. It's an attitude I expect only from junior developers. Ensuring C code is correct and safe is *hard*. I have spent time formally verifying embedded C code for spaceflight. The lessons learned from this has made me supremely suspicious of cowboy coding. I have raised this issue multiple times in this project to no avail. I do not expect things to change. Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. First of all, this was completely uncalled for. Second, mxf support in lavf is pretty much thanks to him. ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 7:28 AM Anton Khirnov wrote: > Hi Paul, > Quoting Paul B Mahol (2023-12-21 21:05:18) > > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. > > this is a personal attach. Personal attacks are not allowed on this > mailing list. Please refrain from them in the future. > Sorry to personally attach you, but best coding cowboy in current FFmpeg is you. > > -- > Anton Khirnov > (CC member) > ___ > 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". > ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Hi Paul, Quoting Paul B Mahol (2023-12-21 21:05:18) > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. this is a personal attach. Personal attacks are not allowed on this mailing list. Please refrain from them in the future. -- Anton Khirnov (CC member) ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 08:43:16PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> ons 2023-12-20 klockan 20:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> > > tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George:
> > [...]
> > > [...] , but every line of code
> > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden
> >
> > Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" maintenance
> > burden
> >
> > then we can proof this to be false
>
> Doubt
ok
i seem to have said, "we". So lets do this together :)
heres an example (code by Dave Burton, not by me)
int main(int b,char**i){long long
n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S))|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
clang -include stdio.h -include stdlib.h -Wall -Weverything -pedantic
-DB=6945503773712347754LL -DI=5859838231191962459LL -DT=0 -DS=7 -o prog prog.c
try
./prog 1
./prog 2
./prog 3
...
Can you think of a way to add some lines of code to this that makes it more
maintainable ?
if yes, then i think you proofed that adding code can reduce maintaince burden
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give
it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For
even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:37:58PM -0500, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:22 PM Nicolas George wrote: > > > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > > > Oh so you know how it feels! > > > > I am not surprised to see your animosity against me is stronger than > > your care about the project. > > > > Not sure what gave you the idea, but I have no animosity towards you and I > appreciate your technical feedback when you share it. > > What surprises me is that you feel discouraged by the same treatment you > have towards others in other discussions: [...] I think many people who feel discouraged by someones treatment, have done similar to others. > All > I hope is that we can all communicate better in 2024 and be able to work > together. i strongly agree, i hope that too :) I wanted to quote epictetus, but as i googled i found this, which is a bit more elaborate https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/afacdz/when_you_are_offended_at_any_mans_fault_epictetus/ maybe a good guiding principle for 2024 ? thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in physics you will never get a job again. If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in medicin you will get a job for life at the pharma industry. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 6:14 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > > I agree, I hope you can work on your lack of self-awareness. > > Oh, the “Ah ?… Et moi, Cyrano-Savinien-Hercule De Bergerac.” comeback. > You're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel, aren't your. > No, I'm just pointing out the obvious, but there is none so deaf as those who will not hear. Anyway the offtopic has been gone long enough, no point in continuing this dead branch of a resurrected thread. For real, no harm feelings, thanks for this pleasant and fruitful exchange. -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > I agree, I hope you can work on your lack of self-awareness. Oh, the “Ah ?… Et moi, Cyrano-Savinien-Hercule De Bergerac.” comeback. You're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel, aren't your. -- Nicolas George ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:41 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > > Not sure what gave you the idea > > Mails like this one for example. The lack of self-awareness is > hilarious. > I agree, I hope you can work on your lack of self-awareness. -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > Not sure what gave you the idea Mails like this one for example. The lack of self-awareness is hilarious. -- Nicolas George ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:22 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > > Oh so you know how it feels! > > I am not surprised to see your animosity against me is stronger than > your care about the project. > Not sure what gave you the idea, but I have no animosity towards you and I appreciate your technical feedback when you share it. What surprises me is that you feel discouraged by the same treatment you have towards others in other discussions: it's been an actual concern of mine that your long paragraphs of empty text and sometimes toxic messages may have discouraged many people and companies to work on the project. All I hope is that we can all communicate better in 2024 and be able to work together. Fwiw I'm glad you and Paul agree on something at least, though, let's remember, the topic is a simple "new decoders should come with tests" and its objections seem an odd hill to die on. Cheers -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-21): > Oh so you know how it feels! I am not surprised to see your animosity against me is stronger than your care about the project. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:05 PM Paul B Mahol wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 8:43 PM Tomas Härdin wrote: > > > ons 2023-12-20 klockan 20:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > > > tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > > > [...] > > > > [...] , but every line of code > > > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden > > > > > > Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" maintenance > > > burden > > > > > > then we can proof this to be false > > > > Doubt > > > > > What iam trying to say is, the maintaince burden resulting from a > > > change > > > is complex > > > > Indeed > > > > > In this specific case here we have a patch proposing the removial of > > > a decoder > > > missing a test. > > > Its easy to say the burden is less when the decoder is removed > > > But its author recently left the project too > > > > This is one problem. But the careless attitude to shoving more features > > into the codebase is far more serious. Every line of code is a CVE > > waiting to happen. Apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp for > > some contributors. It's an attitude I expect only from junior > > developers. > > > > Ensuring C code is correct and safe is *hard*. I have spent time > > formally verifying embedded C code for spaceflight. The lessons learned > > from this has made me supremely suspicious of cowboy coding. > > > > I have raised this issue multiple times in this project to no avail. I > > do not expect things to change. > > > > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. > Contributions to the process that makes us code better and keep higher quality code are welcome. Let's not fall into the trap of "no commits therefore your opinion is invalid" way of thinking which only a fool would follow. -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:31 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Paul B Mahol (12023-12-21): > > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. > > I did not want to say it, but since it is now in the open: Not nothing: > negative. His naysaying discouraged me from working further on the > built-in documentation system. > Oh so you know how it feels! -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Paul B Mahol (12023-12-21): > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. I did not want to say it, but since it is now in the open: Not nothing: negative. His naysaying discouraged me from working further on the built-in documentation system. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 8:43 PM Tomas Härdin wrote: > ons 2023-12-20 klockan 20:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > > tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > > [...] > > > [...] , but every line of code > > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden > > > > Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" maintenance > > burden > > > > then we can proof this to be false > > Doubt > > > What iam trying to say is, the maintaince burden resulting from a > > change > > is complex > > Indeed > > > In this specific case here we have a patch proposing the removial of > > a decoder > > missing a test. > > Its easy to say the burden is less when the decoder is removed > > But its author recently left the project too > > This is one problem. But the careless attitude to shoving more features > into the codebase is far more serious. Every line of code is a CVE > waiting to happen. Apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp for > some contributors. It's an attitude I expect only from junior > developers. > > Ensuring C code is correct and safe is *hard*. I have spent time > formally verifying embedded C code for spaceflight. The lessons learned > from this has made me supremely suspicious of cowboy coding. > > I have raised this issue multiple times in this project to no avail. I > do not expect things to change. > Say what serious feature you contributed ? - Nothing. ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
ons 2023-12-20 klockan 20:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > [...] > > [...] , but every line of code > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden > > Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" maintenance > burden > > then we can proof this to be false Doubt > What iam trying to say is, the maintaince burden resulting from a > change > is complex Indeed > In this specific case here we have a patch proposing the removial of > a decoder > missing a test. > Its easy to say the burden is less when the decoder is removed > But its author recently left the project too This is one problem. But the careless attitude to shoving more features into the codebase is far more serious. Every line of code is a CVE waiting to happen. Apparently this is a difficult thing to grasp for some contributors. It's an attitude I expect only from junior developers. Ensuring C code is correct and safe is *hard*. I have spent time formally verifying embedded C code for spaceflight. The lessons learned from this has made me supremely suspicious of cowboy coding. I have raised this issue multiple times in this project to no avail. I do not expect things to change. /Tomas ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: [...] > [...] , but every line of code > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden Assuming you mean with "non-zero" a "larger than zero" maintenance burden then we can proof this to be false First we need to define what you mean by "maintenance burden" ? There are a few ways this could be defined A. the absolute number of hours all developers need to spend to maintain some sort of stable quality B. the number of hours on average a FFmpeg developers need to spend to maintain some sort of stable quality (A favors 9 hours over 10 hours even if the 10 hour case has 2 devlopers available but the 9 has only 1. While B favors the 10/2 over 9/1) C. the number of hours of work noone really wants to do, FFmpeg developers need to spend to maintain some sort of stable quality (again we can do this as all or per developer) (the idea of C is that we count work that people dont like to do with more weight) (and there are many more ways to define it ...) Now the sketch of a proof :) Consider all the code related to "--help" code related to printing the version and build. Code printing where to send bugreports/samples. Also all formating maybe ;) or even some random check here or there. The "maintenance burden" in all definitions will worsen as the code becomes less readable, less well documented or as things related to maintaince are removed But its more than just this i think. * If you remove code that some comnpany or major user needs, and who pays for maintaince than removial of even complex and hard to maintain code can actually be negative and similarly adding complex code can actually be positive maintaince wise. IF it also results in additional resources becoming available for maintaince. (this can be a developers time or a companies money or other) * In the same light both merging and spliting code can have an impact on maintenance burden. For example if you have a group of developers who are unable to work together, them spliting up in 2 forks and a 3rd merging their work together avoiding their inability to agree can reduce burden on both OTOH if 2 groups can join and work together the sharing of resources and such can free up time and reduce maintaince burden What iam trying to say is, the maintaince burden resulting from a change is complex In this specific case here we have a patch proposing the removial of a decoder missing a test. Its easy to say the burden is less when the decoder is removed But its author recently left the project too [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem). On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Tomas Härdin (12023-12-20): > I'm not even sure what this is trying to say, but every line of code > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden Sure, if you want. But for some parts of FFmpeg, like the one we are discussing, the maintenance burden is so small that we wasted ten time as much energy having this discussion. I congratulate you on an efficient use of developers resources. > Brag about your criminal enterprise and get busted by cops? You do not even know the classics? -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
tis 2023-12-19 klockan 15:02 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > Tomas Härdin (12023-12-19): > > Technical debt concerns everyone > > There is no technical debt. There is never a technical debt from > something that can be removed at an instant notice and that some are > considering removing now I'm not even sure what this is trying to say, but every line of code carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden > Learn from the Dread Pirate Roberts Brag about your criminal enterprise and get busted by cops? /Tomas ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Tomas Härdin (12023-12-19): > Technical debt concerns everyone There is no technical debt. There is never a technical debt from something that can be removed at an instant notice and that some are considering removing now. Learn from the Dread Pirate Roberts: always put off stupid things until the next day. -- Nicolas George ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
tis 2023-12-05 klockan 08:44 +0100 skrev Nicolas George: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-04): > > It's almost 2024, when will you be able to drop it? > > Never. When will YOU be able to drop bickering about parts of the > code > that do no harm and do not bother you? Technical debt concerns everyone /Tomas ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Quoting James Almer (2023-12-06 21:49:45) > On 12/2/2023 12:53 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Its author not only failed to add any tests, as is required by the > > development rules, but continues to actively refuse to do so. > > > > Untested decoders are worse than useless, so remove it. > > --- > > Changelog | 2 +- > > libavcodec/Makefile| 1 - > > libavcodec/allcodecs.c | 1 - > > libavcodec/qoadec.c| 170 - > > 4 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 173 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 libavcodec/qoadec.c > > As there are tests now afaics, this patch can be withdrawn. Of course, actually pushing it was never the point of this patch. -- Anton Khirnov ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
I ain't reading all of that Happy for you Or sorry that happened On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:47 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-05): > > Your attitude for "omgfeatures" is also pretty toxic, there are heaps of > > literature about feature creep and how important it is to remove dead > code. > > You should read said literature before quoting it, you would learn the > difference between more features and feature creep: creeping features > make it harder to maintain core features. > > So, can you prove that this QOA decoder makes it harder to maintain the > framework of FFmpeg? No, you cannot. > > > Uhhh, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting your message, but that looks > like > > a very ignorant comparison. > > It is not ignorant at all, you show exactly the same argument structure. > > Homophobes cannot prove homosexuality causes objective and immediate > harm to anybody. > > You cannot prove that Paul's code causes objective and immediate harm to > the project. > > So homophobes resort to invoking a vague harm to society / youth / > whatever. > > So you resort to invoking a vague harm to a generation. > > You do it because you have a strong intuition that it is true. > > Homophobes have a strong intuition that it is true too. > > But intuition without arguments has no place in a debate, it cannot > convince anybody. > > And your intuition is just as wrong as the homophobes'. > > In this instance, your intuition is wrong because it applies to FFmpeg > what it knows about professional projects — open or closed source — > whereas FFmpeg is not a professional project but a Libre Software > projects whose most talented contributors work for fun. > > In a professional project, the time and effort of developers is limited > and must be focused on useful things. In a project like FFmpeg, the time > and effort that talented developers invest in the project grows as they > can work on fun tasks, even when said tasks are of limited usefulness. > > A sure way of killing a project like FFmpeg is to prevent people from > working on the things they find fun and try to force them to do useful > things instead, either by outright rejecting if you have the authority > or by drowning them with bickering and demands, like you did with > Michael and like you just ran Paul out. > > Good job. > > -- > Nicolas George > ___ > 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". > -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On 12/2/2023 12:53 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote: Its author not only failed to add any tests, as is required by the development rules, but continues to actively refuse to do so. Untested decoders are worse than useless, so remove it. --- Changelog | 2 +- libavcodec/Makefile| 1 - libavcodec/allcodecs.c | 1 - libavcodec/qoadec.c| 170 - 4 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 173 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 libavcodec/qoadec.c As there are tests now afaics, this patch can be withdrawn. ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-05): > Your attitude for "omgfeatures" is also pretty toxic, there are heaps of > literature about feature creep and how important it is to remove dead code. You should read said literature before quoting it, you would learn the difference between more features and feature creep: creeping features make it harder to maintain core features. So, can you prove that this QOA decoder makes it harder to maintain the framework of FFmpeg? No, you cannot. > Uhhh, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting your message, but that looks like > a very ignorant comparison. It is not ignorant at all, you show exactly the same argument structure. Homophobes cannot prove homosexuality causes objective and immediate harm to anybody. You cannot prove that Paul's code causes objective and immediate harm to the project. So homophobes resort to invoking a vague harm to society / youth / whatever. So you resort to invoking a vague harm to a generation. You do it because you have a strong intuition that it is true. Homophobes have a strong intuition that it is true too. But intuition without arguments has no place in a debate, it cannot convince anybody. And your intuition is just as wrong as the homophobes'. In this instance, your intuition is wrong because it applies to FFmpeg what it knows about professional projects — open or closed source — whereas FFmpeg is not a professional project but a Libre Software projects whose most talented contributors work for fun. In a professional project, the time and effort of developers is limited and must be focused on useful things. In a project like FFmpeg, the time and effort that talented developers invest in the project grows as they can work on fun tasks, even when said tasks are of limited usefulness. A sure way of killing a project like FFmpeg is to prevent people from working on the things they find fun and try to force them to do useful things instead, either by outright rejecting if you have the authority or by drowning them with bickering and demands, like you did with Michael and like you just ran Paul out. Good job. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:59 AM Nicolas George wrote: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-05): > > I'm not bickering, > > That is exactly what you do. > And you are not? The view must be great from that glass house > actively include testing as part of the bare minimum process to accept the > > patch/review is harming the whole generation of developers. > > I agree that Paul's attitude is utterly toxic to the project, but > Anton's attitude of removing features is way worse. At least Paul almost > only pollutes his own code. > Your attitude for "omgfeatures" is also pretty toxic, there are heaps of literature about feature creep and how important it is to remove dead code. > As for harming a whole generation, it is the same vague argument used by > everybody to condemn anything they do not like, like homosexuality for > example, and that argument is always the same level of bullshit. > Uhhh, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting your message, but that looks like a very ignorant comparison. -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-05): > I'm not bickering, That is exactly what you do. > actively include testing as part of the bare minimum process to accept the > patch/review is harming the whole generation of developers. I agree that Paul's attitude is utterly toxic to the project, but Anton's attitude of removing features is way worse. At least Paul almost only pollutes his own code. As for harming a whole generation, it is the same vague argument used by everybody to condemn anything they do not like, like homosexuality for example, and that argument is always the same level of bullshit. -- Nicolas George ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 2:45 AM Nicolas George wrote: > Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-04): > > It's almost 2024, when will you be able to drop it? > > Never. When will YOU be able to drop bickering about parts of the code > that do no harm and do not bother you? > I'm not bickering, we're having a discussion on a mailing list (aka the point of having a list in the first place) -- also, having someone in one of the largest mailing lists promoting a development model that does not actively include testing as part of the bare minimum process to accept the patch/review is harming the whole generation of developers. Please stop saying nonsense, or do it with a bit more kindness without bringing up dead projects, and I'll stop answering you. Believe me I want this more than you do. Cheers -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Vittorio Giovara (12023-12-04): > It's almost 2024, when will you be able to drop it? Never. When will YOU be able to drop bickering about parts of the code that do no harm and do not bother you? -- Nicolas George ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 1:53 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Anton Khirnov (12023-12-02): > > Its author not only failed to add any tests, as is required by the > > development rules, but continues to actively refuse to do so. > > > > Untested decoders are worse than useless, so remove it. > > Only tested manually ≠ untested. > > A code that works is better than no code at all. > > We are not libav, we do not remove code just because the Great Dictator > says so. If you really really want this decoder to have a test, you can > write add it yourself. > It's almost 2024, when will you be able to drop it? -- 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Hi, On Sat, 2 Dec 2023, at 19:55, Paul B Mahol wrote: > Its not hard to add/write test, and even its easy to upload test sample to > server, but last time I did it people complained of too big samples. What is too big a sample? What's the problem with large samples? What is the documented official limit? jb -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
Anton Khirnov (12023-12-02): > Its author not only failed to add any tests, as is required by the > development rules, but continues to actively refuse to do so. > > Untested decoders are worse than useless, so remove it. Only tested manually ≠ untested. A code that works is better than no code at all. We are not libav, we do not remove code just because the Great Dictator says so. If you really really want this decoder to have a test, you can write add it yourself. Rejected. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 7:20 PM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote: > > > > On Dec 2, 2023, at 7:53 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > Its author not only failed to add any tests, as is required by the > > development rules, but continues to actively refuse to do so. > > > > Untested decoders are worse than useless, so remove it. > > While I agree that decoders (among other things) need tests this seems > like an unfortunate outcome from an end user perspective. There are QOA > samples at https://qoaformat.org/samples/ and presumably someone else > could add some tests for it if the author can't be bothered. Can we hold > off on this for a couple of days? If nobody else can add a test I can try > to do so but I'll need a couple of days to figure it out. > Its not hard to add/write test, and even its easy to upload test sample to server, but last time I did it people complained of too big samples. So I learned my lesson. > > - Cosmin > > > ___ > 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". > ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
> On Dec 2, 2023, at 7:53 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Its author not only failed to add any tests, as is required by the > development rules, but continues to actively refuse to do so. > > Untested decoders are worse than useless, so remove it. While I agree that decoders (among other things) need tests this seems like an unfortunate outcome from an end user perspective. There are QOA samples at https://qoaformat.org/samples/ and presumably someone else could add some tests for it if the author can't be bothered. Can we hold off on this for a couple of days? If nobody else can add a test I can try to do so but I'll need a couple of days to figure it out. - Cosmin ___ 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".
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: remove the QOA decoder
What a nice narrative. Yes, remove this decoder. And keep two sonic decoders at same time of questionable code quality, functionality and what not. ___ 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".
