On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:03 PM Nicolas George wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer (12019-08-16):
> > irc logs off? irc logs off.
> > carl not here? carl not here.
> > nicolas is an awful person who disagrees with everything and
> does no work like ever, yet hangs around the ml to be obnoxious
> >
Michael Niedermayer (12019-08-16):
> irc logs off? irc logs off.
> carl not here? carl not here.
> nicolas is an awful person who disagrees with everything and does no
> work like ever, yet hangs around the ml to be obnoxious
> his opinions on asserts should disqualify him from working on any
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:35 AM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> > Aug 14, 2019, 19:29 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> > >
> > >> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
> >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Aug 14, 2019, 19:29 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> >
> >> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger
Aug 15, 2019, 19:15 by geo...@nsup.org:
> Lynne (12019-08-14):
>
>> I can't find a single hint of aggression in my email. I'm being direct and
>> factual.
>> If you see this as aggression you shouldn't read any specifications or
>> reports, you'll find yourself very offended.
>>
>
> Was this
Lynne (12019-08-14):
> I can't find a single hint of aggression in my email. I'm being direct and
> factual.
> If you see this as aggression you shouldn't read any specifications or
> reports, you'll find yourself very offended.
Was this supposed to be not aggressive either?
> I couldn't help
Aug 14, 2019, 19:29 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
>
>> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
>>
>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer
>> >>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> >
> >> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This provides an alternative to retry
Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>
>> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>
>> > This provides an alternative to retry counters.
>> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations
On 12.08.2019, at 21:53, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>
>>> This provides an alternative to retry counters.
>>> Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > This provides an alternative to retry counters.
> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
> > no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
>
>
On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> This provides an alternative to retry counters.
> Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
> no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
Going by the old principle of "an API is not tested until it has at least 3
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:59:12AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer (12019-08-08):
> > This provides an alternative to retry counters.
> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
> > no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
> >
> > Signed-off-by:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:38:58PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> >
> > You argue that it does not NEED to be in lavu, but not that it SHOULD
> > note.
> >
> > > Plus, its not really common av code, and don't let its name mislead
> > > you, its more of a hack.
> >
> > I will disregard the insulting
>
> You argue that it does not NEED to be in lavu, but not that it SHOULD
> note.
>
> > Plus, its not really common av code, and don't let its name mislead
> > you, its more of a hack.
>
> I will disregard the insulting subtext of this sentence.
>
There is nothing insulting about this sentence.
Lynne (12019-08-08):
> Its niche, we have very few places where there's a chance a loop will
> become infinite. Even then, they're likely all in lavc, and you can
> just put a non-public header there if there's more than a few. And
> right now, there's only one.
You argue that it does not NEED to
Aug 8, 2019, 11:36 AM by geo...@nsup.org:
> Lynne (12019-08-08):
>
>> That's very niche and I don't think it belongs to lavu.
>>
>
> That's a single header with no compiled code.
>
>> Having codec specific code is better.
>>
>
> Why? Why risk bug duplication and maintenance burden?
>
Its niche,
Lynne (12019-08-08):
> That's very niche and I don't think it belongs to lavu.
That's a single header with no compiled code.
> Having codec specific code is better.
Why? Why risk bug duplication and maintenance burden?
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Aug 8, 2019, 9:36 AM by mich...@niedermayer.cc:
> This provides an alternative to retry counters.
> Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
> no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
>
That's very niche and I don't think it belongs to lavu.
Having codec specific code is
Michael Niedermayer (12019-08-08):
> This provides an alternative to retry counters.
> Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
> no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer
> ---
> doc/APIchanges| 3 ++
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
