Am 18.10.17 um 16:02 schrieb Compn:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:34:18 +0200, wm4 wrote:
>
>>> more so, opaque_ref is used in only 5 lines in the whole codebase,
>>> so there is not much code to consider when using a different solution
>>
>> We shouldn't add such special
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Compn wrote:
[...]
a third party might be able to settle the stalemate.
i strongly support this. And it was in part why i suggested to take
this to the vote comittee. Most people from the vote
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Compn wrote:
[...]
> a third party might be able to settle the stalemate.
i strongly support this. And it was in part why i suggested to take
this to the vote comittee. Most people from the vote committee are
uninvolved in this
This should be carefully
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:34:18 +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > more so, opaque_ref is used in only 5 lines in the whole codebase,
> > so there is not much code to consider when using a different solution
>
> We shouldn't add such special fields, we have enough hacks already. Is
> that
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:37:32 +0200, Thilo Borgmann
wrote:
> I do care because I am delaying my work on some other cuvid related thing
> because of this.
>
> I would prefer not to dive into this topic any further because it seems
> rather "not so important" to my task.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 07:26:01AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
[...]
>
> > it also violates the API IMO, but thats not so much the point
>
> It does not. I created the fucking API.
>
> > The data the user application wants to attach to a AVFrame for the
> > user applications extrenal purposes
> > and
>
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:49:51AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> I have realized that your veto is actually not valid:
> - it's a Libav merge
There is no exception for changes from Libav.
Not in the policy and not in actual actions. We never pushed
changes with standing objections.
[...]
--
Michael
Am 17.10.2017 um 20:37 schrieb Thilo Borgmann:
Am 17.10.17 um 20:27 schrieb wm4:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:23:25 +0200
Thilo Borgmann wrote:
Am 17.10.17 um 06:49 schrieb wm4:
I have realized that your veto is actually not valid:
- it's a Libav merge
- it has been for
Am 17.10.17 um 20:37 schrieb Thilo Borgmann:
> Am 17.10.17 um 20:27 schrieb wm4:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:23:25 +0200
>> Thilo Borgmann wrote:
>>
>>> Am 17.10.17 um 06:49 schrieb wm4:
I have realized that your veto is actually not valid:
- it's a Libav merge
Am 17.10.17 um 20:27 schrieb wm4:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:23:25 +0200
> Thilo Borgmann wrote:
>
>> Am 17.10.17 um 06:49 schrieb wm4:
>>> I have realized that your veto is actually not valid:
>>> - it's a Libav merge
>>> - it has been for months in the Libav repo and you
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:23:25 +0200
Thilo Borgmann wrote:
> Am 17.10.17 um 06:49 schrieb wm4:
> > I have realized that your veto is actually not valid:
> > - it's a Libav merge
> > - it has been for months in the Libav repo and you didn't specifically
> > care, nor did
Am 17.10.17 um 06:49 schrieb wm4:
> I have realized that your veto is actually not valid:
> - it's a Libav merge
> - it has been for months in the Libav repo and you didn't specifically
> care, nor did you make an attempt to merge the commit in a "fixed" way
> - this patch would have been merged
Correction: will push as part of cuvid/videotoolbox patches whenever
they're ready.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:58:58 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > It doesn't - not the user's. We use only the field for internal
> > purposes (as AVFrame users), and we never do anything
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 09:40:26AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 23:01:41 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:19:04PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:41:28 +0200
> > > Michael Niedermayer
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 00:01:30 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> The opaque_ref wraping is a really bad design. Iam not sure why
> people defend it.
FFmpeg is full of this design. There are plenty of structs with
opaque/priv fields that change meaning depending on the
On 05/10/17 23:59, Mark Thompson wrote:
> On 05/10/17 23:01, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:03:40PM +0100, Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> On 05/10/17 17:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:04:54PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31
On 05/10/17 23:01, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:03:40PM +0100, Mark Thompson wrote:
>> On 05/10/17 17:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:04:54PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31 +0200
Tobias Rapp
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:03:40PM +0100, Mark Thompson wrote:
> On 05/10/17 17:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:04:54PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31 +0200
> >> Tobias Rapp wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 04.10.2017 11:34, wm4 wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:01:56 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2017-10-05 21:22 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
>
> >> And this is just one example ...
> >
> > Your one example was invalid, next one please.
>
> One example is more than enough, we can all see that
On 05/10/17 17:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:04:54PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31 +0200
>> Tobias Rapp wrote:
>>
>>> On 04.10.2017 11:34, wm4 wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
Michael Niedermayer
2017-10-05 21:22 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
>> And this is just one example ...
>
> Your one example was invalid, next one please.
One example is more than enough, we can all see that this
is not clean new code.
What is wrong about adding a new field if you really need it?
Carl
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:47:01 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:04:54PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31 +0200
> > Tobias Rapp wrote:
> >
> > > On 04.10.2017 11:34, wm4 wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 4 Oct
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:04:54PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31 +0200
> Tobias Rapp wrote:
>
> > On 04.10.2017 11:34, wm4 wrote:
> > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
> > > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed,
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:02:10 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2017-10-04 14:04 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
>
> > if you care about what gets merged, discuss it with the
> > original author on the libav-devel mailing list before it
> > gets committed.
>
> You do
2017-10-04 14:04 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
> if you care about what gets merged, discuss it with the
> original author on the libav-devel mailing list before it
> gets committed.
You do realize that you are asking for something that
is not possible - did you forget?
Carl Eugen
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:37:31 +0200
Tobias Rapp wrote:
> On 04.10.2017 11:34, wm4 wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
> > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017
On 04.10.2017 11:34, wm4 wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:40:58 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:47:39 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 11:34:18AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
> > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0200, wm4
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 11:34:18AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:40:58 +0200
> > > Michael Niedermayer
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:22:37 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:40:58 +0200
> > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:15:13PM +0200, wm4
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:40:58 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:15:13PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > > From: Anton Khirnov
> > >
> >
> > > Use the AVFrame.opaque_ref
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:40:58 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:15:13PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> > From: Anton Khirnov
> >
>
> > Use the AVFrame.opaque_ref field. The original user's opaque_ref is
> > wrapped in the lavc struct
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:15:13PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> From: Anton Khirnov
>
> Use the AVFrame.opaque_ref field. The original user's opaque_ref is
> wrapped in the lavc struct and then unwrapped before the frame is
> returned to the caller.
this is a ugly hack
one and the
From: Anton Khirnov
Use the AVFrame.opaque_ref field. The original user's opaque_ref is
wrapped in the lavc struct and then unwrapped before the frame is
returned to the caller.
This new struct will be useful in the following commits.
Merges Libav commit
34 matches
Mail list logo