On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:34:55PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:09:36 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:07:42AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > Le sextidi 26 vendémiaire, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :  
> > > > probably, yes  
> > > 
> > > I would have said exactly the opposite. It is nothing but a waste of time
> > > and a pollution of the history.  
> > 
> > My idea here is to maximize the number of developers
> > And if in cases where one doesnt really care much either way and
> > someone else seems caring more one says, "ok" that may result in a happy
> > new contributor.
> > Saying "no" is more likely to turn someone away.
> > and again, it doesnt really matter if the , is there after a
> > final sentinel /count entry as no next field would ever be added
> 
> Are you kidding me. Patches should be judged on their technical merrit,
> not whether you might piss someone off by rejecting it.

this is about a cosmetic change having no real technical effect


> 
> Rather, you'd keep someone on one's toes by giving him hope that his
> patch might be accepted - and making him waste some more time on it.
> Just with the result that other devs might reject the patch anyway,
> which would make for a frustrating experience.
> 
> > And ATM the "," thing is not consistent either way
> > git grep '_NB$' |wc
> >      53     114    2123
> > git grep '_NB,$' |wc
> >      30      76    1499
> > 
> > Making this more consistent shouldnt be a bad thing if the people who
> > want it also do the work ... (and it doesnt end as some rule that
> > causes future work to people not caring ...)
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> That's true, but your grep has a huge number of false positives.

it was just a quick, dirty and crude statistic,
slightly better is:

git grep  '^[ A-Za-z0-9_]*_NB$' | wc
     52     104    2018
git grep  '^[ A-Za-z0-9_]*_NB,$' | wc
     22      44     964


[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Dictatorship: All citizens are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the politicians to enforce control.
Democracy: All politicians are under surveillance, all their steps and
actions recorded, for the citizens to enforce control.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Reply via email to