[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MS-GSM support: draft for review

[Diego Biurrun]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:29:05AM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 06:13:37PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> >>This is not the way I see collaboration to an open-source project. When 
> >>someone has something that works (in a domain where things didnt work or 
> >>were not implemented before), you may reject code that is *grossly* 
> >>wrong or bloated or slow; not because you find the style not one-liney 
> >>enough, or complicated enough, or obfuscated enough.
> >
> >I disagree.  Why disregard quality standards just because it is new?  If
> >somebody appeared tomorrow with - say - a complete decoder for RealVideo
> >3.0 and 4.0 do we have to commit it immediately even though it's full of
> >buffer overflows?  Hardly ...
> 
> I wrote "wrong or bloated or slow". So your counterexample is not 
> appropriate.

I read and understood what you wrote, I just don't agree with it.  Let
me put it another way: This project has strict quality guidelines.  They
are sacrificed neither for complete new decoders nor for MS-GSM support.

> >>With 30 years of experience under my belt, I would not tolerate that 
> >>attitude from my head of department, and I dont think I have to accept 
> >>it from you.
> >
> >Now calm down, no need to work up a temper :)
> >
> >Michael *is* the head of department around here 
> 
> Simple question: why? I gladly recognize his expertise where fast 
> multimedia code is concerned, but his criteria about code quality are 
> definitely not the same as mine.

Because he is the person that has the most expertise, commits, reviews,
experience, time on this project (call it years of experience under his
belt if you wish) ...  Plus, I don't see anybody willing and able to
replace him.

> >and while he is strict,
> >he is so with everybody and he always has good technical reasons for
> >being so.  Just split your patch into independent parts and it will be
> >applied in no time...
> 
> Apparently not, Michael has junked *all* of it, and demanded an 
> implementation based on AVParser, mostly for reasons of Microsoft-bashing.

Get over it, this is not personal.

Diego