On date Wednesday 2025-05-07 23:42:53 +0000, softworkz . wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefano Sabatini <stefa...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2025 01:31 > > To: softworkz . <softwo...@hotmail.com> > > Cc: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Shaping the AVTextFormat API Surface > > > > On date Saturday 2025-05-03 08:55:42 +0000, softworkz . wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > > softworkz . > > > > Sent: Dienstag, 29. April 2025 01:24 > > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Shaping the AVTextFormat API Surface > > [...] > > > Hello Stefano, > > > > > > I have five new commits for this: > > > > > > fftools/textformat: Rename variables wctx to tctx > > > fftools/textformat: Cleanup unneeded includes > > > fftools/textformat: Add validation for TextFormat API > > > fftools/textformat: Add validation for AVTextWriter implementations > > > fftools/textformat: Add validation for AVTextFormatter implementations > > > > > > Yet I don't believe it makes sense to squash them once again back into > > > commits that you have reviewed already, they are much easier to review > > > separately. > > > > > > So, if you would agree, I'd merge the current patchset first (once > > > Michael confirms the zlib issue being resolved) and send the new commits > > > as a new patchset then? > > > > Feel free to merge patches which have been already approved or > > approved with minor nits - in fact this will simplify the task of > > reviewing. Please give some more time to review the other ones not yet > > approved. >
> I sent out an e-mail yesterday, asking whether anybody would need more time, > and that I'm planning to apply by the end of the week otherwise. > The set is around for three weeks by now and afaik, at least Andreas > has reviewed the whole set already. > But if anybody needs more time, I'll surely postpone it. So I won't block on this, especially given that I don't have much time to review these days and this is not public API so it can be changed later with no user impact. I expressed some concerns about some design choices (e.g. the struct vs flags) which I'd like to be addressed though to avoid code churns later. _______________________________________________ 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".
