> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Montag, 7. April 2025 11:14
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
> Marton Balint (HE12025-04-06):
> > I think a log flag to completely hide the addresses makes sense, and
> can be
> > implemented cleanly and reliably in avutil/log. I can totally support
> that.
>
> I do not. The more I think on it, the more I consider this whole
> endeavour is completely misguided.
>
> One of our guiding principles is that the console output of our
> command-line tools should be, by default, usable by experienced users.
> This is why we reject proposals to hide the banner by default, and this
> is why we should not do this either.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas George
> _______________________________________________
Hi Nicolas,
had a bad sleep?
Misguided?
Our "guiding principles" involve outputting tons of meaningless numbers?
The analogon you are trying to draw is comparing apples and oranges. Besides -
no matter how experienced a user may be - as long as the one doesn't have
access to any kind of debugging tool, those memory addresses are largely
useless (excepting the small value of discriminability that my original
patchset is retaining in the form of "simple IDs").
Beyond those use cases, anybody claiming those numbers being of value for
oneself, being an experienced user, would be nothing more than a pretender.
sw
PS: As far as I'm concerned: I did have a bad sleep. Next time I'll try to be
friendly again, even though it's hard after reading such nonsense.
_______________________________________________
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".
