Leo Izen (12023-08-25): > FWIW I read it the same way Anton did but if it's unclear then perhaps it > could be modified. Essentially, I think what's going on is we don't want > "NAK" without a reason. If you want to say a patch shouldn't make it in, > there should at least be a reason.
I agree on this too. > Even if the reason is "this API/module has no place in FFmpeg." But not on this example: what has place in FFmpeg or not is anybody's arbitrary opinion, saying “no place in FFmpeg” alone is just a fancy way of saying “NAK” with no reason. It must be substantiated too, for example “the same feature is already possible [like that]”. And if the same feature is *not* already possible, then it surely means the code *does* belong in FFmpeg. Regards, -- 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".
