On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:20:46PM +0000, Gaullier Nicolas wrote: > >this breaks fate > > > >If the changes are intended the reference must be updated by the patch > >causing the changes > > Sorry, forgot... Now, I have some questions regarding fate tests: > > 1) I would like to update the fate test itself : > Currently, we have : silencedetect=d=-20dB > I am considering changing it to : silencedetect=n=-30dB:d=.4 > The reason is that the usage would be more relevant (dB applying to noise + > duration set to a consistent value for this speech sample), easier to check > manually in a waveform editor, and that the coverage would be extended for > the new patches (silence_start=0 + log of silence_end at end of stream). > Should I first publish the patch with only the fate results changed and later > on another patch to update the fate test with results changed again ? > Personally, I would say a single patch with all three items (patch + fate > test update + fate result update) would be clearer, but I am not familiar > with ffmpeg usages, so I prefer asking... >
> 2) I just realized today that I could fix the accuracy of silence_end too, > even if it is clearly much less important compared to silence_start > Do you think this should be handled by another patch, or should I better > group this patch with this one as they both deal with time accuracy and > affect fate results (I would rather go for the latter) ? each independant change should be in a seperate patch > > 3) Should I prepare a new fate test to cover the new "mono" mode (patch 1/4) ? if you like, yes more complete test coverage is always good thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
