On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:19:55AM -0700, Timothy Gu wrote: > 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.
That is a peculiar stance to take. > 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 This patch was not pushed yet and subsequent patches take the issue into account. > http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2013-November/053158.html: > the VP9 decoder was pushed without addressing the original author's > concern. That was not a review and this VP9 story was preceded by the HEVC story. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
