Niklas Haas (HE12025-08-11): > I still think this series overall is a step in the wrong direction; and that > our goal should be to move towards negotiation, and not towards some IMO hacky > flag that is already deprecated on arrival.
In terms of work, this patch series is 5% trivial code easily removed and 95% work that is necessary for real negotiation. Which means this patch series is a step in the right direction anyway. > However, I decided I would rather just implement the full negotiation at this > point, to save ourselves the continued discussion; especially in light of the > TC's inaction / radio silence. > > Can you confirm that, if we implement full negotiation (thus allowing every > filter to decide for itself which alpha modes it can ingest), your remaining > your remaining objection to this series would be withdrawn? Of course. I suspect you widely underestimate the amount of work necessary for real negotiation, but I would be happy to be proven wrong on this issue. As I said multiple time, work on negotiation in libavfilter must start with adding test coverage to avoid breaking the myriad of corner cases that have been implemented over the years. I would be happy to review your patches in this direction. Feel free to take over the old preliminary ones I had posted a few years ago and never pushed. But whatever you choose, negotiation or hackish flag, I will stand firm on the fact that the default must be to protect users from creating invalid output. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".
