2018-03-05 13:53 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>:
> On 3/5/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2018-03-05 12:37 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>:
>>> On 3/5/18, Vasile Toncu <vasile.to...@tremend.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Thanks for the review. I've made changes according to your guidance.
>>>> It would be great to know if the community will go on with our intention
>>>> of adding reinterlace as a alternative for tinterlace.
>>>> That being said, here is the new patch.
>>> As already said, this is not acceptable.
>>> There is no point in having 2 filters with near same funcionality.
>> If you consider the new filter ok, the existing filter will be removed
>> in the same push. I believe sending only the new filter makes
>> reviewing easier.
> I'm ok with that, but next commits that do that and also do rename are
> not available.

It should have been a former (not a next) commit that I considered
trivial but I see now that because of fate it makes sense to add and
remove in one patch.

> I'm also not sure can reinterlace filter be considered really safe from
> standpoint that it does not use any old GPL code.

Not sure I understand:
Do you mean that the new filter was not independently written?

> Also bunch of stuff it does is trivial, both new and old GPL
> code so I consider nobody should care about its license.

That does not sound like a safe approach.

Carl Eugen
ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to