On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:33:19AM +0200, wm4 wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 01:00:45 +0200 >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:28:56AM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote: >> > > >> > > Kieran suggested tonight on #ffmpeg-devel to have a common mailing-list >> > > between the two projects to start communicating again in sane terms. >> > > >> > > The proposition would be a mailing-list where the 2 projects would send >> > > the patches that will make API evolutions. So the projects can continue >> > > to >> > > drop or add codecs & filters without caring about the other, but will try >> > > to communicate more about the API, for the sake of our common users. >> > > >> > > At first, I suggest that won't engage anything from any of the two >> > > projects (so we don't end up in a stalled states such as one project >> > > trying to block the other), but it could be seen as a way to introduce >> > > some common technical ground. >> > >> > Your use of "engaged" makes my English parser return ENOUNDERSTAND. >> > >> > > What do you think? >> > >> > I think or thought that this proposal was mostly a trollbait and discarded >> > replying so far, but you appear genuinely convinced that something like >> > this is a suitable first, and not - say - seventh, step, so I'll bite. >> > >> > Often times API additions or changes are discussed on this mailing list. >> > You FFmpeg people are all subscribed here; what stops you from replying >> > on this mailing list? >> >> The same thing that stops Anton from making constructive comments on >> those "horrible" FFmpeg APIs on the FFmpeg ML, > > There's the issue of hostility and personal insults to consider, don't > you agree? There are no such things happening here.
There are no insults, but there are reviews from FFmpeg developers that are ignored here, which are even worse IMO. Latest cases I have spotted: http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2014-August/062391.html: the first more important point was not considered in the only reply to the post http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2013-November/053158.html: the VP9 decoder was pushed without addressing the original author's concern. If this is a misunderstanding, please come forward and address it. Timothy _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
