On 2/8/2018 7:25 AM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote: > On 8 February 2018 at 10:06, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > >> Michael Niedermayer (2018-02-08): >>> +1 >> >> I agree too. >> >> And maybe, since we are reverting something, revert the whole series. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Nicolas George >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> firstname.lastname@example.org >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> >> > > -1, I object to reverting anything. > We should fix what we have right now. The API looks good too except some > people here feel like they haven't bikeshedded enough and want to cause > even more chaos. > One bad commit and you all go screaming revert with your pitchforks instead > of trying to fix it.
A set of seven patches was pushed before any of them got a full review or even an ok, which unsurprisingly introduced a plethora of issues, and all while there were discussions going about implementing the API in a different way by more than one developer. I do not, under any circumstance, support this strategy of pushing unfinished things and then argue that since it's already committed it can't be touched. I have no idea how you or anyone could support this kind of thing. The entire set should be reverted if only to make it clear that this is not how development should work, yet everyone so far, including myself, has suggested to only revert the one non-API commit that badly broke a lot of things, then work on top of the already introduced API to effectively finalize it, and then fix and reapply any implementation bits. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list email@example.com http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel