On 7/13/2014 6:31 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > Le quintidi 25 messidor, an CCXXII, Derek Buitenhuis a écrit : >> You skillfully ignored the words "with proper setup", good job. > > I did not think you would insist on your "no true Scotsman" fallacy. > > Fact is that mounting is often not possible, and running ffmpeg in that case > is still legitimate, including with CIFS access.
Perhaps you should work a bit on your English and look up the definition of "technically". "according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly." You claimed its not possible, and it indeed is, with proper setup. But it /is/ possible under certain conditions, so ipso facto you are /technically/ wrong. >> "There might be a use case" is a pretty terrible reason to throw more things >> in the kitchen sink. > > "I do not need that, so I will call it bloat to reject it, even though some > users do need it." Sorry, but it seems you sent this mail on the wrong > mailing-list. I don't see myself rejecting it, just question its design. If you had bothered to read my other email, I explicitly said I am not blocking it. Furthermore, the point of review isn't to just review a patch based on pure technical merit of the code, but design as well. Implementation isn't the only thing that matters. I dig the random Libav jab, BTW. Very classy. - Derek _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel