On 10/17/2011 1:03 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > This is great work and we should merge it (as in: patch LGTM). > > Now, as for "explode", the distinction between "explode" and > "bitstream" appears to be mostly one of "stuff that used to be > there before you touched it" and "stuff you touched". Not that I > mind, but I feel that ATM, bitstream and explode do approximately > the same thing. If they do, we should either split it cleaner, or > merge it? > > Ronald
There's indeed currently no clean conceptual distinction between "explode" and "bitstream", as you observe. I also agree that this is a problem. I wrote it that way so I could relatively quickly get lots of new checks in without having to debate the status of each one but that's not a good long-term situation. Further, a nontrivial number of people might actually use "compliant"/"crccheck"+"bitstream". Changing its behavior thus would become dependent on either risking disrupting that by either removing relied-upon checks or making it suddenly too strict by existing "compliant" standards. That risk stipulated, fixing up the "bitstream"/"explode" confusion something less contingent on who happened to notice the error conditions would make sense. It makes more sense to do so, though, with the current (basically behavior-invariant) patch committed as a base and by modifying particular err_recognition checks. It's no worse than the status quo and allows for more flexible testing. Also, regardless, the first patch, <http://patchwork.libav.org/patch/10264/>, would remain unchanged and could be pushed. -Dustin _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
