[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] New library for shared non-generic libav* utils
Baptiste Coudurier
baptiste.coudurier
Fri Jul 9 19:59:44 CEST 2010
On 07/09/2010 09:48 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> 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...
Nah, this is heavily biased. A lot of lines are defines and macros in
*.h, not talking about the recent controversial documentation commits.
--
Baptiste COUDURIER
Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer http://www.ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list