On 10/21/2017 4:14 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2017-10-21 21:12 GMT+02:00 James Almer :
>> On 10/21/2017 4:04 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>> Just to understand this better:
>>> The plan was to remove some fields from avcodec.h to have a reason
>>> to remove a tool that has a large user base
>> T
2017-10-21 21:12 GMT+02:00 James Almer :
> On 10/21/2017 4:04 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> Just to understand this better:
>> The plan was to remove some fields from avcodec.h to have a reason
>> to remove a tool that has a large user base
> The "plan" is to follow what was agreed a year and a ha
On 10/21/2017 4:04 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Just to understand this better:
> The plan was to remove some fields from avcodec.h to have a reason
> to remove a tool that has a large user base
The "plan" is to follow what was agreed a year and a half ago, then
confirmed with a vote last November
On 21 October 2017 at 20:04, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Just to understand this better:
> The plan was to remove some fields from avcodec.h to have a reason
> to remove a tool that has a large user base?
>
> What kind of logic is that?
> Shouldn't we communicate to our users that we like them?
>
>
On 10/21/17, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Just to understand this better:
> The plan was to remove some fields from avcodec.h to have a reason
> to remove a tool that has a large user base?
This is the Joke.
>
> What kind of logic is that?
Sane one, yours is flawed.
> Shouldn't we communicate to
Just to understand this better:
The plan was to remove some fields from avcodec.h to have a reason
to remove a tool that has a large user base?
What kind of logic is that?
Shouldn't we communicate to our users that we like them?
Carl Eugen
___
ffmpeg-de
