Hi, On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun < andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thus I object to reverting this before the regression caused by 31741ae is > fixed. This is ridiculous, I (who didn't break it and don't even have hw supporting any of our hwaccel implementatons) already proposed a method to fix it _properly_ (without introducing alternate regressions) that everyone agreed to. That is, everyone that responded. After a re-poke. And you weren't one of them. Which makes me wonder, you're very good at objecting, but you never give +1s on good ideas that are different (but better) than your ideas. That's a terrible attitude. You're not perfect. Other people's ideas can be better than yours. Can you please look at my RFC in the related thread and comment on the proposed fix? If you like it, that includes +1'ing it so I can assume we have general consensus before I implement it and get bikeshedded after doing work on it. And after you've done that, can we not bring this subject and 31741ae up again? Thanks, Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
