On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:35 AM Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Lynne wrote: > > Aug 14, 2019, 19:29 by mich...@niedermayer.cc: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote: > > > > > >> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by mich...@niedermayer.cc: > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > This provides an alternative to retry counters. > > >> >> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and > > >> >> > no ordering that naturally avoids loops. > > >> >> > > >> >> Going by the old principle of "an API is not tested until it has > at least 3 users" > > >> >> might it make sense to delay this until we've found and tested it > in a few use-cases? > > >> >> Depending on how much hurry there is to get the bug-fix in. > > >> >> > > >> >> I assume there is also an actual bug-fix patch somewhere, maybe we > should have that > > >> >> in the same patch series to make it easier to review the actual > usage? > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > sure will repost this eventually with 3+ bugfixes. > > >> > But wont search for such bugs ATM as ive too many other things to do > > >> > so it might take a bit of time before i do > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > diff --git a/doc/APIchanges b/doc/APIchanges > > >> >> > index 6603a8229e..eee4c30ec5 100644 > > >> >> > --- a/doc/APIchanges > > >> >> > +++ b/doc/APIchanges > > >> >> > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ libavutil: 2017-10-21 > > >> >> > > > >> >> > API changes, most recent first: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > +2019-XX-XX - XXXXXXXXXX - lavu 56.XX.XXX - loop_detector.h > > >> >> > + Add loop_detector.h, av_is_loop(), AVSimpleLoopDetector > > >> >> > > >> >> Does is mean it is a public/installed header? > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > that was intended, but it can of course be trivially be kept local > if people > > >> > prefer when i repost with 3+ dependant fixes > > >> > > > >> > > >> You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're > doing this, nor even the second. > > >> I still do no think even with 3 bugfixes this deserves to be in lavu > but rather in every library as a non-installed header, at the very most. I > still prefer for code to be duplicated for such a small amount of fixes. > > >> Iit could encourage other developers to put this in their code when > it isn't needed when a properly written loop would never go infinite. > > >> And, regardless where this code goes, its still as its been pointed > out, a hack. > > >> > > > > > > why are you agressive ? > > > > > > > I can't find a single hint of aggression in my email. I'm being direct > and factual. > > If you see this as aggression you shouldn't read any specifications or > reports, you'll find yourself very offended. > > What i refered to as agressive is > "You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're doing > this, nor even the second." > > Lets look at this claim by claim > > "You are ignoring 2 developers" > > I do not, i noted that 2 people dislike this patch and i will eventually > post > a new patchset. If that is still disliked by 2 then we need to look at what > the oppinion of the 2 people will be exactly about that new patchset. > The 2 developers have not seen a not yet written patchset only thing really > known is who the author of the patchset will be. > > > "and this isn't the first time you're doing this, nor even the second." > > This is a simple ad hominem attack, we know who you speak of (me) but > noone can > know what issues you talk about so noone can verify this or correct or > improve > anything. > > > "its still as its been pointed out, a hack." > > If you see some issue in the code you should explain what issue that is and > not just call the code a "hack". Because noone knows what you refer to and > there is nothing that can be done about issues that noone knows what they > refer to. > > > Another example of aggression from you is (IRC from a few hours ago) > > <Lynne> irc logs off? irc logs off. > <Lynne> carl not here? carl not here. > <Lynne> nicolas is an awful person who disagrees with everything and does > no work like ever, yet hangs around the ml to be obnoxious > <Lynne> his opinions on asserts should disqualify him from working on any > library ever > <durandal_1707> add reimar to that list > <Lynne> I'll remove that assert if I push that patch, just because maybe > he'll fuck off then > <durandal_1707> they only work toward covering michael > <Lynne> reimar does, nickolas is just there to misunderstand and be > annoying and demanding > > just stop these attacks/insults against people. > Not until all mplayer people are not longer part of organization. You called for it by this behavior. > > Thanks > > [...] > > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > You can kill me, but you cannot change the truth. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".