Anton Khirnov (12020-02-25): > So I believe all code needs > continued justification for its existence - not just "it was added in > the past so it stays in forever". Note that I'm not saying it needs to > be mainstream or very popular - I am fine with obscure features that > are only useful to a few people in highly special cases (given they are > not unduly intrusive and those people are willing to maintain them). But > so far in this thread, there has been no actual use presented for > exporting and passing around QP tables. None whatsoever.
You are ignoring a significant bias in making this argument: satisfied people don't complain. The feature is there, it works. If people need it, they use it. They don't come on the mailing list complaining they have no problem. They don't even consider fixing a compilation warning among many others, especially when they possibly don't compile themselves. If we think a feature is unused and want to remove it, I think we need to announce it in a way that its users can't miss, and then let them sufficient time to make their needs known. In this case, "in a way that its users can't miss" is not true. You are right in saying that features are a maintenance burden, and therefore we should remove features that are unused. But for that, you need to actually make a case for the fact that they are unused. For now, AFAICS, you case amounts to the fact that nobody spontaneously told you they use this filter. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
