Le quintidi 5 messidor, an CCXXIII, wm4 a écrit :
People don't follow mathematic rules, and neither do human arguments.
Not even software development does.
And yet, even so, the reasoning discipline gives valuable results even in
these areas. Wonderful, isn't it?
The current architecture just
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:33:42 +0200
Nicolas George geo...@nsup.org wrote:
Le quintidi 5 messidor, an CCXXIII, wm4 a écrit :
People don't follow mathematic rules, and neither do human arguments.
Not even software development does.
And yet, even so, the reasoning discipline gives valuable
Le quintidi 5 messidor, an CCXXIII, Derek Buitenhuis a écrit :
The crux of the issue here is that there is disagreement on whether some
features
should be in libav* at all. It's separation of functionality. It's not really
possible to show something satisfactory when it's the wrong place for
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:51:18 +0200
Nicolas George geo...@nsup.org wrote:
Le quintidi 5 messidor, an CCXXIII, wm4 a écrit :
I think you're alone with this.
I do not intend to push for it, it was just an extreme example. I do maths,
and there is one thing we learn: if you want to know how
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:05:31 +0200
Nicolas George geo...@nsup.org wrote:
Yes, libavspellcheck! I used it as an absurd example, but if you think
carefully on it, it is not actually absurd.
I think you're alone with this.
libav* are for (de)muxing and decoding/encoding. That's why people are
Le quintidi 5 messidor, an CCXXIII, wm4 a écrit :
I think you're alone with this.
I do not intend to push for it, it was just an extreme example. I do maths,
and there is one thing we learn: if you want to know how solid an argument
is, push it to the extreme. If you suspect f is monotonic and
On 22/06/15 9:11 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
Anyway, this is a part of my GSoC task that has been accepted and I'm
compelled to implement it so I won't be getting into further discussion.
Let's just say a large portion of the community didn't
On 6/22/2015 5:33 PM, James Almer wrote:
I have no opinion one or way or another regarding this addition, but if this
is a GSoC project then i guess the time to show disagreement was back in
February when it was a suggested project waiting for applications, and not in
the middle of the program
On 6/22/2015 6:52 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
When and where ?
Example: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/179883
And also *constantly* on IRC, although I am sure IRC doesn't count
or somesuch.
My argument then is the same as now: this does not belong in libav*. It
On 6/22/2015 9:15 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
Thank you for clarification. I understand there are people who are not
happy with additions like this. However, there are also people who think
these changes are needed and trying to stop them just because we don't
want this here or worse,
On 6/22/2015 11:58 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
I don't think it's fair to say Lukasz is the only one standing for these
changes. But let's not make it personal and hold on any grudges for a
moment.
I hold no ill will against anyone, as long as no ill will is held against me.
I do,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
derek.buitenh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/2015 9:15 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
Thank you for clarification. I understand there are people who are not
happy with additions like this. However, there are also people who think
these
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:46:01PM -0300, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
Hi everyone
Not really getting into the whole discussion on blocking
remarks to a running (sponsored) project. I sincerely hope
we all agree that once work has started on these, we should
try to be constructive
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:31:00PM +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
[...]
Your mentor is the only one who
decided it belongs here, because he wanted to use it.
Please stop the finger pointing and work toward a resolution of this
its not just one man, iam not even sure he intended to use it
On 6/22/2015 10:24 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
You may also recall I brought up the fact that the GSOC qualification
task was mostly reworking the patch set from Lukasz, and thinking
that was a bit sketchy.
I went and looked. It wad *directly* brought up by Keiran on ffmpeg-mentors.
He was,
On 6/23/2015 12:46 AM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
Not really getting into the whole discussion on blocking
remarks to a running (sponsored) project. I sincerely hope
we all agree that once work has started on these, we should
try to be constructive and let the student do their job
On 6/22/2015 11:18 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Please stop the finger pointing and work toward a resolution of this
its not just one man, iam not even sure he intended to use it himself.
I agree I was a too aggressive.
However, I am not aware of a single person.
As for working towards a
On 6/22/2015 10:31 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
That is not on
you though, and I apologize for dragging your GSOC application into it.
To follow up on this, I do understand how GSOC works, and it is too late
to say 'no' to this, and I feel bad for you having negatives dumped on
you like this.
I
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
On 21/06/15 09:37, Timothy Gu wrote:
El sábado, 20 de junio de 2015, Mariusz Szczepańczyk
mszczepanc...@gmail.com mailto:mszczepanc...@gmail.com escribió:
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
Anyway, this is a part of my GSoC task that has been accepted and I'm
compelled to implement it so I won't be getting into further discussion.
Let's just say a large portion of the community didn't and don't think
this idea has any place in
On 22/06/15 14:11, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk wrote:
Anyway, this is a part of my GSoC task that has been accepted and I'm
compelled to implement it so I won't be getting into further discussion.
Let's just say a large portion of the community didn't
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 06:06:58PM +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
On 6/22/2015 5:33 PM, James Almer wrote:
I have no opinion one or way or another regarding this addition, but if this
is a GSoC project then i guess the time to show disagreement was back in
February when it was a suggested
On 21/06/15 09:37, Timothy Gu wrote:
El sábado, 20 de junio de 2015, Mariusz Szczepańczyk
mszczepanc...@gmail.com mailto:mszczepanc...@gmail.com escribió:
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
libavformat/avio.c| 38 ++
On 21/06/15 10:11, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk
mszczepanc...@gmail.com wrote:
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
libavformat/avio.c| 38 ++
libavformat/avio.h| 19 +++
Suppose you're writing a video player with browsing capabilities for network
protocols (like Kodi/XBMC). Now you can have file rename/delete
functionality in it.
Suppose you are writing a video player and need to change the screen resolution.
Can we have that feature in libavutil too?
Kieran
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:24 PM, wm4 nfx...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:20:53 +0100
Kieran Kunhya kier...@obe.tv wrote:
Suppose you're writing a video player with browsing capabilities for
network
protocols (like Kodi/XBMC). Now you can have file rename/delete
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:11:53AM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk
mszczepanc...@gmail.com wrote:
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
libavformat/avio.c| 38 ++
libavformat/avio.h| 19
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:20:53 +0100
Kieran Kunhya kier...@obe.tv wrote:
Suppose you're writing a video player with browsing capabilities for network
protocols (like Kodi/XBMC). Now you can have file rename/delete
functionality in it.
Suppose you are writing a video player and need to
El sábado, 20 de junio de 2015, Mariusz Szczepańczyk
mszczepanc...@gmail.com escribió:
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
libavformat/avio.c| 38 ++
libavformat/avio.h| 19 +++
libavformat/url.h | 2 ++
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Mariusz Szczepańczyk
mszczepanc...@gmail.com wrote:
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
libavformat/avio.c| 38 ++
libavformat/avio.h| 19 +++
libavformat/url.h | 2 ++
libavformat/version.h |
---
doc/APIchanges| 4
libavformat/avio.c| 38 ++
libavformat/avio.h| 19 +++
libavformat/url.h | 2 ++
libavformat/version.h | 2 +-
5 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/doc/APIchanges
31 matches
Mail list logo
