First about this discussion in general: There is a reason this is tagged RFC and the other thread is called proposal. I hope we can go on with the vivid discussions while keeping in mind that it is not yet narrowed down and nothing is decided.
Always constraining all ideas, is not a good way to open up a wide enough solutions space, to discover a favourable path to take. On 2020-08-23 20:06 +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Hendrik Leppkes (12020-08-23): > > I would at least want it to be optional. > > Of course. Yes, I always had in mind to make it optional too. We must even differentiate a bit more. Currently we have some parts of the documentation embedded already, namely AVOption.help etc. May plan was first not to change that. So no difference to how things are now. For further improvements I thought about giving the option to embed more (or to embed more and give the option to turn it off). And to also give an option to exclude most/all documentation, including AVOption.help if it seems worthwhile. Your application might also not need that, right? Anyway I think we should be careful while evaluating the options of excluding or including more documentation. It should be measured how the proportions are right now, and how it would change. I'm definitely against just implementing something because some people think it is a great idea. > Also, it would be a new build-dep, it must be optional for that reason > too. Although it would make harder to eliminate the descriptions in the > source files like Alexander wants. Couldn't look at your RFC in detail yet. I'm not sure why there wouldn't be a way to eliminate those, while making embedding more documentation optional. Best regards, Alexander _______________________________________________ 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".