[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] New library for shared non-generic libav* utils

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:41:59PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 09:54:11AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> 
>> >> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Stefano Sabatini
>> >> <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> wrote:
>> >> [.. cut ..]
>> >> > This new lib will contain all code/utils which need to be shared
>> >> > between more libav* libs, and are not enough generic to deserve a
>> >> > place in libavutil, which is to be considered a collection of
>> >> > generic/non-multimedia-related utilities.
>> >> 
>> >> Disregard me if majority says otherwise, I just wanted to
>> >> bikesheddishly note that my personal humble opinion is that less libs
>> >> is good, so I'd not have any problems with media-related stuff going
>> >> into libavutil. I think the chance that people use a FFmpeg lib for
>> >> something unrelated to multimedia is relatively small and should not
>> >> be our main focus. Reminds me of not allowing media-specific stuff in
>> >> libgstreamer.so. It only causes headaches and distractions. There is
>> >> no practical advantage.
>> >
>> > as maintainer of libavutil i object.
>> 
>> You are not the sole maintainer.
>> 
>> > We can have a seperate lib for common code.
>> 
>> If ever there were an exercise in work creation, this is it.
>
> for us yes, but libavutil is usefull to other projects, ive myself
> used code from it for many things unrelated to ffmpeg. Its not used
> much by outsiders but i think thats more because its not well known.
>
>> > Iam not stopping people from having their common lib which prior to
>> > libavfilter was libavcodec. But now due to libavfilter not depending
>> > on libavcodec this is no longer possible.
>> >
>> > But trying to kill my effort of a util lib
>> 
>> Perhaps conducting that effort inside FFmpeg, the most
>> multimedia-focused project the world has ever known, wasn't such a
>> bright idea.
>
> it depends, we do need all the code in libavutil anyway, putting it in a
> seperate lib that others can use too doesnt seem all that wrong.
> and it is now available in most distros, thus it can actually be used

If others can use it, that's good for them.  We should still think
about whom we are doing this work for.  Is it for ourselves or for
hypothetical external users we do not even know about?

>> > I spended alot of time on libavutil and its only goal was to become
>> > a general utils lib
>> 
>> Said who?  It wasn't even your idea to begin with.  It was suggested
>> and implemented by Alexander Strasser.
>
> svn blame of *.c *.h says:
> ...
>     102      ramiro
>     108       takis
>     110      benoit
>     111      lucabe
>     123     bellard
>     126   michaelni
>     157          al
>     185    gpoirier
>     285      kostya
>     351       aurel
>     918      reimar
>    1295       diego
>    1349         mru
>    1616     stefano
>    2398     michael

I get some rather different numbers with git's more accurate blame
(tracking lines across moves within or between files):

   2635 michael
   2043 mru
   1664 diego
   1464 stefano
    949 reimar
    354 aurel
    279 kostya
    252 lu_zero
    147 michaelni
    126 bellard
    121 astrange
    116 lucabe
    105 benoit
    101 takis
    101 ramiro

> so id say, yes iam still the primary maintainer and author, even if
> we consider that blame is not the worlds most idiot proof way to
> check this

Yes, you wrote more lines than anyone else, but not by any large
margin.  Of the total ~11k lines, you only contributed roughly 25%.
If lines were votes, you'd be losing.  You seem to like votes...

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com