[Ffmpeg-devel-irc] ffmpeg-devel.log.20180727

[burek]

[00:21:58 CEST] <atomnuker> do we have anything that currently miscompiles and failes in some fate test?
[00:24:13 CEST] <jamrial> a few tests with msvc 2015 and 2017
[00:24:42 CEST] <jamrial> also what looks like false possitive valgrind failures: http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20180726173832&slot=x86_64-archlinux-gcc-valgrind
[00:29:12 CEST] <nevcairiel> the 2017 tests are fixed in a future msvc release
[00:29:17 CEST] <nevcairiel> i reported them and got them fixed
[00:30:02 CEST] <nevcairiel> not sure what their timeline for the next release it
[09:23:48 CEST] <JEEB> lol
[09:23:59 CEST] <JEEB> "DTS > PTS is OK because https://devstreaming-cdn.apple.com/videos/streaming/examples/bipbop_16x9/gear1/main.ts does it"
[09:33:57 CEST] <kierank> JEEB: LOL
[09:34:17 CEST] <JEEB> yes, I got a fat laugh out of it
[09:35:07 CEST] <JEEB> """allowed and works fine"""
[09:35:32 CEST] <kierank> Does it actually do that?
[09:36:10 CEST] <JEEB> I looked at that TS file and I can see DTS > PTS in the graph
[09:36:15 CEST] <JEEB> DVBInspector <32
[09:36:18 CEST] <JEEB> *<3
[09:36:56 CEST] <kierank> Should post that on video-dev
[09:37:33 CEST] <kierank> I assume DTS < pcr as well, that's usually the case on these shitty web files
[09:38:26 CEST] <JEEB> I'll double-check to make sure it's not just my lack of caffeine
[09:39:17 CEST] <JEEB> ok, PCR < DTS at least
[09:39:31 CEST] <JEEB> then PTS can of course be before PCR
[09:43:18 CEST] <JEEB> kierank: https://kuroko.fushizen.eu/screenshots/apple_mpegts/nice_timestamps_there.png
[09:43:48 CEST] <JEEB> PCR and DTS are monotonically rising and PCR < DTS
[09:43:55 CEST] <JEEB> then PTS plays a game around them
[09:44:08 CEST] <kierank> the fuck
[09:44:36 CEST] <kierank> reminds me what thierry says "these guys don't know what a DTS is"
[10:07:21 CEST] <JEEB> michaelni: thanks for running full FATE on that, I did notice some other things with "ismv" in name, but it was late and I didn't figure out how to run them (unlike `make fate-movenc` which I knew of)
[12:33:24 CEST] <thardin> quick heads-up: I'm looking into adding an option for qt-faststart for the peertube folks to probe a file for its faststart-ness
[12:36:25 CEST] <JEEB> meanwhile I think I'll be postin' patches fixing the sub2video mess with filter chain re-inits
[12:36:50 CEST] <JEEB> since it seems like my initial fix only worked well enough with things that contain EOF
[12:38:06 CEST] <kierank> JEEB: can you post in video-dev that thing
[12:38:09 CEST] <kierank> frankly it's a disgrace
[12:38:12 CEST] <kierank> I want to troll web poeple
[12:38:34 CEST] <thardin> trolling webdevs is always good
[12:38:37 CEST] <JEEB> I'll do that after $dayjob
[12:38:42 CEST] <JEEB> because yes, lol
[12:38:53 CEST] <JEEB> and then people say their implementations are OK "because apple is doing it too"
[12:39:03 CEST] <thardin> my old workplace is trying to make a frame-accurate video editor on the web
[12:39:32 CEST] <JEEB> thardin: ooh, sounds like fun. daiz was IIRC testing which web video apis failed at frame-exactness (many)
[12:39:56 CEST] <thardin> yeah my initial reaction was like "isn't position a float in the web video api?"
[12:40:12 CEST] <thardin> and like, I doubt they deal with audio and video starting at different times
[12:41:22 CEST] <thardin> I think they're trying to get involved in the web video circus to try and get it improved
[12:41:40 CEST] <thardin> I remain skeptical
[12:42:15 CEST] <kierank> JEEB: probably good, will annoy the valley types
[12:42:28 CEST] <kierank> JEEB: I might email thierry with that picture
[12:42:34 CEST] <JEEB> :D
[12:43:16 CEST] <atomnuker> "What are these issues so we can fix them?"
[12:43:19 CEST] <atomnuker> WTF
[12:43:29 CEST] <atomnuker> literaly in the same sentence above I described them
[12:43:33 CEST] <atomnuker> can he not read?
[12:43:43 CEST] <atomnuker> its not a long sentence either
[13:24:38 CEST] <jdarnley> How can I make ubuntu tell me where the upstream source for a package is?  I want to know where indent comes from.
[13:58:59 CEST] <thardin> are there fragmented mov/mp4 file samples somewhere?
[14:04:37 CEST] <thardin> nm, discovered -frag_size
[14:08:55 CEST] <cone-144> ffmpeg 03hwren 07master:d645e0d6c1f2: lavc: add AVS2/IEEE 1857.4 parser
[14:08:56 CEST] <cone-144> ffmpeg 03hwren 07master:b7b7b8e8a1ab: lavf: add avs2 fourcc
[14:08:57 CEST] <cone-144> ffmpeg 03hwren 07master:5985a1bf7233: lavc, doc, configure: add avs2 video decoder wrapper
[14:27:45 CEST] <thardin> is it possible to add a list of files to test inside fate? like if I can separate a bunch of samples into two classes and want to make sure they remain so separated
[14:28:17 CEST] <thardin> perhaps a normal shell for loop is enough
[15:52:01 CEST] <thardin> is mov-frag-encrypted  supposed to fail?
[15:52:33 CEST] <jamrial> no
[16:12:59 CEST] <thardin> perhaps a rebase will sort it
[16:13:12 CEST] <jamrial> atomnuker: can you calm down? why every time i open an email of yours i read only angry rants?
[16:13:47 CEST] <jamrial> seriously, i swear you lose your cool for the stupidest shit
[16:14:35 CEST] <atomnuker> I thought I didn't this time?
[16:14:48 CEST] <gnafu> jamrial: I understand he's been without sleep and in a heatwave, so there's that.
[16:14:54 CEST] <gnafu> I can only imagine how miserable that must be.
[16:15:05 CEST] <jamrial> re-read the email you wrote that i replied to
[16:15:11 CEST] <gnafu> (Not that you aren't generally angry, atomnuker ;-).)
[16:17:31 CEST] <cone-144> ffmpeg 03James Almer 07master:536bcc30e04a: avcodec: add missing files missed in previous commits
[16:23:35 CEST] <atomnuker> I think BBB's email was angrier tbh
[16:23:43 CEST] <BBB> huh what?
[16:23:48 CEST] <BBB> I wasnt angry at all
[16:24:01 CEST] <BBB> I thought I explained myself really well, at least I tried
[16:24:31 CEST] <BBB> if I mis-explained myself or I said something that is scientifically unsound or morally wrong, please let me know, that wasnt my intention at all
[16:24:56 CEST] <atomnuker> well my intention wasn't to sound aggressive either, I just made it clear that mistakes were made and it sucks
[17:08:20 CEST] <BBB> We don't commit such huge patches without at least some form of review, *ahem* libmpfilter *ahem* *cough*
[17:11:18 CEST] <atomnuker> I can't even find a reference to mpfilter anywhere at any time in our repo
[17:11:29 CEST] <atomnuker> so I assume this must have been before my time
[17:12:00 CEST] <BBB> it was the mplayer avfilter lookalike that was committed to libavfilter because
[17:16:49 CEST] <atomnuker> did someone rewrite git history to remove it?
[17:16:50 CEST] <jamrial_> atomnuker: it was like ten filters, all gpl, awfully glued to lavfi, that all had to be ported to native ones before they could be removed because people were against removing things without a 1:1 replacement
[17:17:11 CEST] <jamrial_> check vf_pp7 and similar, or grep for MPlayer in the libavfilter folder
[17:17:29 CEST] <BBB> I think it has left scars on our community
[17:17:35 CEST] <BBB> if you werent there, its probably better
[17:17:41 CEST] <BBB> it was really awful
[17:17:52 CEST] <BBB> I think its the thing that sparked the libav fork
[17:17:55 CEST] <BBB> iirc
[17:18:04 CEST] <jamrial_> i wasn't there when they were added, but i was there when they were removed. it was a nice chunk of code gone
[18:11:43 CEST] <cone-144> ffmpeg 03James Almer 07master:7ca892b7e5ca: fate: remove unnecessary reference file for fate-encryption-info
[19:12:39 CEST] <atomnuker> jamrial_: honestly, who's side are you on?
[19:13:01 CEST] <atomnuker> how are people supposed to point out what's wrong with the code when its already in the repo?
[19:13:13 CEST] <jamrial_> the side of having a discussion, not saying "i'm going to revert it because i think it's wrong"
[19:13:17 CEST] <atomnuker> yesterday you were telling me to post the patch now you don't want it
[19:13:47 CEST] <atomnuker> we can have a discussion and come up with a patch people are happy with that can then be pushed
[19:14:08 CEST] <atomnuker> no need to pollute the git history with dozens of fixes
[19:14:20 CEST] <jamrial_> [20:57:01 CEST] <atomnuker> I'm making a patch and explaining what went wrong and how to fix it, if anything it'll raise a discussion and maybe a patch to fix it without reverting
[19:14:46 CEST] <jamrial_> your own words, and what i expect to happen. discussions to avoid reverting are happening
[19:14:50 CEST] <atomnuker> yes, but pedro's objections have been unsubstatial
[19:14:58 CEST] <jamrial_> if no solution is found, then reverting is an option
[19:15:18 CEST] <atomnuker> the solution is to revert so we can start clean
[19:15:52 CEST] <atomnuker> 3 times I've had to repeat the objections to pedro, is he even listening?
[19:16:56 CEST] <atomnuker> I don't see how the code can be saved at all, its rubbish, he'll fucking keep objecting and the code will stay because he won't fix it!
[19:17:03 CEST] <atomnuker> this is what might happen
[19:17:17 CEST] <atomnuker> especially with the custom float to uint8 conversion
[19:19:45 CEST] <jamrial_> if you list all the issues instead of saying "there are too many to list", then he could being trying to address them
[19:21:37 CEST] <jamrial_> i'm not against a revert. i'm against a revert in 24 hours when the mentor is still disagreeing
[19:25:19 CEST] <atomnuker> it wouldn't have been 24 hours, its more like 36, I wouldn't revert at midnight...
[19:25:32 CEST] <atomnuker> and maybe the mentor would accept the situation if I wasn't alone
[19:26:08 CEST] <atomnuker> this will take time to clean up and even then it'll be crap, what a mess
[19:26:27 CEST] <kierank> you don't need to be so aggressive on the mailing list like it's a life or death situation
[19:27:32 CEST] <jamrial_> atomnuker: you're not alone. BBB and j-b are also against this filter in its current state
[19:28:01 CEST] <j-b> I just claim that it is currently non-free.
[19:28:10 CEST] <j-b> and should be gplv3, because of tensorflow
[19:29:48 CEST] <atomnuker> I am alone in that I think it should be reverted
[19:31:38 CEST] <atomnuker> kierank: now that the code is committed the author can just endlessly stall and get away with anything
[19:31:57 CEST] <j-b> I agree with you, because it shouldn't be in FFmpeg, but that's not my call
[19:32:12 CEST] <jamrial_> no, it can't stay like this for the 4.1 release, so it's either fixed before that, or removed before that
[19:32:17 CEST] <j-b> Objectively, i can just speak about the legality and the challenges
[19:32:17 CEST] <atomnuker> it isn't life or death, its living with shitty code in our repo
[19:32:38 CEST] <j-b> but, I think that you are pushing too many 'features' that should be done outside.
[19:32:41 CEST] <kierank> 7:31:38 PM <"atomnuker> kierank: now that the code is committed the author can just endlessly stall and get away with anything
[19:32:44 CEST] <kierank> that's the whole point of maintainers
[19:33:03 CEST] <kierank> to force crap in then block anyone from removing it
[19:33:31 CEST] <atomnuker> well he isn't a maintainer, he didn't get a review, he just pushed it thinking it was good enough
[19:34:19 CEST] <jamrial_> this is a gsoc project, and he's the mentor
[19:34:36 CEST] <JEEB> kierank: thankfully video-dev seemed to mostly WTF about those timestamps
[19:35:30 CEST] <atomnuker> even worse, its gsoc code
[19:39:55 CEST] <atomnuker> custom pixel format conversion code... its like he hasn't even read the yearly discussion we have as to why we very clearly never ever ever do that
[19:50:04 CEST] <BBB> I think hes a more recent contributor so he would have missed all of that
[19:57:11 CEST] <kierank> you know the right way to do this would be to write a policy document
[19:57:13 CEST] <kierank> at vdd
[19:57:39 CEST] <kierank> but yes I dislike inline pixel format conversion code as well
[19:58:09 CEST] <BBB> yes lets discuss at vdd, that has always solved everything :(
[19:59:12 CEST] <kierank> BBB: hence "the right way"
[19:59:31 CEST] <BBB> sarcasm is difficult to convey over IRC
[19:59:39 CEST] <BBB> I was being sarcastic
[20:00:05 CEST] <BBB> you know, atomnuker has a point. weve always complained about thing in mpegvideo and you know how difficult it is to get things past maintainer review
[20:00:13 CEST] <BBB> getting rid of old clutchy stuff is impossible
[20:01:54 CEST] <jamrial_> yes, but giving a 24hs ultimatum is pushing it a bit
[20:02:08 CEST] <jamrial_> saying "this needs to be fully fixed or removed before the next release is tagged" is acceptable
[20:02:20 CEST] Action: BBB shuffers thinking of ffserver
[20:02:24 CEST] <BBB> *shudders
[20:04:07 CEST] <jamrial_> that's good example. ffserver one had a "must be fixed before the next bump" limit, and when it was not achieved, it was removed
[20:04:10 CEST] <jamrial_> so do the same here
[20:04:36 CEST] <jamrial_> the code as is can't go into ffmpeg 4.1 or distros will hate us
[20:04:41 CEST] <jamrial_> so that's the time limit
[20:05:52 CEST] <jamrial_> but please, don't be aggresive. how else do we expect contributors to stay around after gsoc, if their first project is trashed like this?
[20:10:36 CEST] <BBB> nobody has as of yet responded to my question about merging filters with similar interfaces (if the only diff is the coefficients)
[20:13:34 CEST] <durandal_1707> i hereby object nn filter removal, please do not push it
[00:00:00 CEST] --- Sat Jul 28 2018