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 ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel