On 9/4/2017 2:46 PM, wm4 wrote: > On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 19:40:25 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > >> My thought, if its less energy intensive than what we have then its >> worth having. >> A tiny contribution to reducing carbon emissions ... > > Removing some fringe codecs/filters and FATE test would contribute a > LOT to this. Currently, Libav is way more ecofriendly than FFmpeg, > because it builds and runs FATE in much shorter time
It's the opposite. Both ffmpeg and libav should have more complete FATE suites. Code and function coverage is below 60%. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
