Hi, On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:27:09PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: >> > --- >> > libavformat/avidec.c | 43 +++++++++++++++---------------------------- >> > libavformat/ffmdec.c | 14 +++----------- >> > libavformat/mpeg.c | 12 +++--------- >> > libavformat/mpegenc.c | 1 - >> > libavformat/mpegts.c | 2 -- >> > libavformat/nsvdec.c | 2 -- >> > libavformat/utils.c | 47 >> > +++++++++++++++-------------------------------- >> > 7 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-) >> >> I'm a little confused, 2 days ago you said there was merit to keeping >> DEBUG_SEEK by itself since it appeared to be used a lot, and in >> specific cases. Did that change? > > IIRC I asked if there was merit, you said there was not and I tend > to agree.
You said: > I could do it. DEBUG_SEEK is more common than the other DEBUG defines, > I thought for a moment it might be worth keeping. To which I replied: I'll leave that up to you, so feel free to keep it for now. I don't really have an opinion, if you feel this is a good change, I'm OK with it. If others feel this isn't a good idea, I'd let their review weigh heavier than mine. :-). So why don't you leave this for 2 days and if nobody objects, then push it? Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
