[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Add replay_gain and find_peak_sample options to libmp3lame

[Giovanni Motta]

I am abandoning this set of patches ans submitting a new set.
No options added this time (I will add them later, as they are not
essential and depend on lame patches).
Thanks



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Giovanni Motta <giovannimotta at google.com>
wrote:

> I've re-read the description of #3577 and I am not even sure we are talking
> about the same "Lame tag" here.
>
> What this patch set adds is a Lame info tag extension to the Xing header
> described here:
> http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org/mp3infotag.html (see "*Suggested Info Tag
> extension fields + layout* ").
>
> Some of the encoder settings described in #3777 are stored here, but the
> main point of this extension is to support gapless playback (delay and
> padding) and gain control (replay gain and peak sample).
> G.
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Giovanni Motta <giovannimotta at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Patch 1/4 should amend the texi file for a typo (two extra dashes), so
> 1/4
> > and 2/4 are parts of the same patch.
> >
> > > And I suspect not all four patches fix 3577 but one
> > > (or maybe more than one but that is already unexpected.)
> >
> > Define "fixes" :-)
> >
> > 3577 is more of a feature than a bug (ffmpeg does not create and add the
> > lame tag to the Xing header). I could remove the statement from 1/4-3/4,
> > but 1/4-3/4 are pointless without 4/4 (some settings for the tag are
> added
> > [1/4-2/4], the tag is created and copied to extradata [3/4], but not
> added
> > to the header until 4/4). So, is 4/4 "fixing" the 3577? Any better way of
> > specifying dependency?
> >
> > > I cannot judge how this should (or even can) be split correctly.
> >
> > I think we agree here :-)
> >
> > Original submission, was a single patch and I was told to split the new
> > options added, and then separate libavcodec and libavformat changes, this
> > is why the three patches (well, plus the amend on the doc file). I
> > understand the logic, but I am not sure how you want me to handle this
> case.
> >
> > Any suggestion?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 28, 2014 2:04 AM, "Carl Eugen Hoyos" <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote:
> >
> >> Giovanni Motta <giovanni.motta <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Fixes ticket #3577
> >>
> >> Something is definitely wrong with your patchset;-(
> >>
> >> This patch (2/4) says it adds find_peak_sample but
> >> it was already added in 1/4...
> >>
> >> And I suspect not all four patches fix 3577 but one
> >> (or maybe more than one but that is already unexpected.)
> >>
> >> Sorry, I cannot judge how this should (or even can) be
> >> split correctly.
> >>
> >> Carl Eugen
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> >> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>