> 在 2019年6月28日，04:25，Reimar Döffinger 写道：
>
> On 27.06.2019, at 17:35, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:44 AM Nicolas George wrote:
>>
>>> Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I
>>> am
at home in
On 27.06.2019, at 17:35, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:44 AM Nicolas George wrote:
>
>> Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
>>> I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I
>> am
>>> at home in a few days.
>>
>> Thanks. I am sure Steven will not mind
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:44 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
> > I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I
> am
> > at home in a few days.
>
> Thanks. I am sure Steven will not mind waiting a few days.
>
> > This absolutism is absurd.
>
> Do
On 6/27/2019 10:44 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
>> I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I am
>> at home in a few days.
>
> Thanks. I am sure Steven will not mind waiting a few days.
>
>> This absolutism is absurd.
>
> Do you have an e
Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
> I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I am
> at home in a few days.
Thanks. I am sure Steven will not mind waiting a few days.
> This absolutism is absurd.
Do you have an example of situation where dead code is good?
Regards,
--
>
> If it is so easy, you could do it instead of arguing. If it is not so
> easy, you cannot demand somebody do it.
>
I'm happy to do it now that I am aware of the issue. I will do it when I am
at home in a few days.
> > It is beyond comprehension how removing more code and making the
> situatio
Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
> It's not dead code,
Right now, yes, it is dead.
> the GSOC student last year removed the call to the
> function by accident.
If it is so easy, you could do it instead of arguing. If it is not so
easy, you cannot demand somebody do it.
> It is beyond comprehension
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 20:52, Nicolas George wrote:
> Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
> > Why can this not be fixed properly?
>
> It can. If you have time and motivation to do it, please go ahead.
> Barring that, removing dead code is still an improvement.
>
> Regards,
>
It's not dead code, the GSO
Kieran Kunhya (12019-06-27):
> Why can this not be fixed properly?
It can. If you have time and motivation to do it, please go ahead.
Barring that, removing dead code is still an improvement.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 20:01, Nicolas George wrote:
> Andreas Rheinhardt (12019-06-27):
> > The code is indeed dead atm. To quote myself from ticket 7886:
> > "Commit c64c97b972c7325a71440a352a7d541a8c92b2da has added support for
> > alpha channel decoding in Cineform HD (thereby fixing #6265), b
Andreas Rheinhardt (12019-06-27):
> The code is indeed dead atm. To quote myself from ticket 7886:
> "Commit c64c97b972c7325a71440a352a7d541a8c92b2da has added support for
> alpha channel decoding in Cineform HD (thereby fixing #6265), but
> commit 9cefb9e7ec508900ba147e6977590f03456aa15c broke it
Nicolas George:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-06-27):
>> No, code is not dead and should be kept, ask maintainer for confirmation.
>
> The compiler says it is. I am sorry, but your statement without any
> proof seems less reliable than the diagnostics of the compiler and
> Steven's judgement.
>
> As is,
Paul B Mahol (12019-06-27):
> No, code is not dead and should be kept, ask maintainer for confirmation.
The compiler says it is. I am sorry, but your statement without any
proof seems less reliable than the diagnostics of the compiler and
Steven's judgement.
As is, the code can and should be remo
On 6/27/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 6/27/19, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Liu Steven (12019-06-27):
>>> I remove it because i cannot found the caller for this API.
>>> I think there should have one caller for this API, It will not be used
>>> if
>>> there have no caller, Isn’t it?
>>
>> I suppose yo
On 6/27/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Liu Steven (12019-06-27):
>> I remove it because i cannot found the caller for this API.
>> I think there should have one caller for this API, It will not be used if
>> there have no caller, Isn’t it?
>
> I suppose you built the code and the compiler did not com
Liu Steven (12019-06-27):
> I remove it because i cannot found the caller for this API.
> I think there should have one caller for this API, It will not be used if
> there have no caller, Isn’t it?
I suppose you built the code and the compiler did not complain.
I see no reason to keep dead code
On 6/27/19, Liu Steven wrote:
>
>
>> 在 2019年6月27日，下午4:37，Paul B Mahol 写道：
>>
>> On 6/27/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>>> On 6/27/19, Steven Liu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Steven Liu
---
libavcodec/cfhd.c | 14 --
1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libav
> 在 2019年6月27日，下午4:37，Paul B Mahol 写道：
>
> On 6/27/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> On 6/27/19, Steven Liu wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Liu
>>> ---
>>> libavcodec/cfhd.c | 14 --
>>> 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/cfhd.c b/libavcodec/cfhd.c
>>> inde
On 6/27/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 6/27/19, Steven Liu wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Steven Liu
>> ---
>> libavcodec/cfhd.c | 14 --
>> 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/libavcodec/cfhd.c b/libavcodec/cfhd.c
>> index 846d334b9b..616f5af193 100644
>> --- a/libavcodec/cf
On 6/27/19, Steven Liu wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Steven Liu
> ---
> libavcodec/cfhd.c | 14 --
> 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavcodec/cfhd.c b/libavcodec/cfhd.c
> index 846d334b9b..616f5af193 100644
> --- a/libavcodec/cfhd.c
> +++ b/libavcodec/cfhd.c
> @@ -136,20
20 matches
Mail list logo
