[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] lavu/dict: Add new flag to allow multiple equal keys.

[Thilo Borgmann]

Am 25.03.16 um 21:59 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
>> Am 25.03.16 um 18:48 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes:
>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 25.03.16 um 17:56 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 22.03.16 um 12:20 schrieb Thilo Borgmann:
>>>>>>> Am 22.03.16 um 11:45 schrieb wm4:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:00:23 +0100
>>>>>>>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 13.03.16 um 15:08 schrieb wm4:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:13:21 +0100
>>>>>>>>>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From a1d9ce388c69eabb256e6b351c2acd36d7f4076e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:52:17 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] lavu/dict: Add new flag to allow multiple equal keys.
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Changing the semantics of AVDictionary just like this seems rather
>>>>>>>>>> questionable...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It changes nothing for existing code, just adds a new feature. I don't
>>>>>>>>> think it hurts anyone or anything...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It only breaks basic assumptions about a basic data type...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although I don't share your thought about breaking a basic data type with that,
>>>>>>> what would you suggest instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pushed for no further suggestions and nobody else objected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just pushing without addressing concerns is not the way we usually try
>>>>> to work here, just saying.
>>>>
>>>> I think I have quite a good idea about the usual way we try to handle
>>>> things here and I think I've addressed his concerns.
>>>
>>> If by addressing you mean disagreeing with the concern and doing nothing.
>>
>> Not at all. I proposed alternatives (alternatives which I don't like
>> much but anyway) and I explicitly asked for his suggestions. Means, I
>> actually tried to satisfy his concerns. Thus, I can't understand that
>> you are saying I've ignored anything.
>>
>>
>>>> He didn't like it which is of course ok. He did not continue discussing
>>>> it nor did he proposed any alternative. He also did not pick up any of
>>>> my thoughts. He also did not explicitly state that he thinks that it is
>>>> not ok to apply it. He said it "seems rather questionable". Without
>>>> further discussion (what I tried) and nobody else complaining about it,
>>>> what do you think would be more appropriate than to wait for quite a
>>>> long time until continuing?
>>>>
>>>> The usual way for him to prevent me pushing it would just have been to
>>>> ask me to wait and I would have waited. Have you checked the dates of
>>>> the replies and what I wrote before accusing me to just ignore concerns?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Timing makes no difference. Its the only review you got, so even if
>>> you ignore that, you didn't even get a "OK" from anyone else, which
>>> for generic API should be mandatory.
>>
>> I can't see why you accuse me ignoring something again.
> 
> I didn't, I just stated that noone ever OKed your patch.
> 
>>
>>
>>> The least that would have been appropriate would be to ping the patch
>>> asking for further comments, instead of just practically saying "I'm
>>> done waiting and just pushing"
>>>
>>> Not everyone has the time to answer within a day, so if someone
>>> expressed a concern, the least one could do before pushing is asking
>>> again, everything else feels rather disingenuous.
>>
>> First concern about this was stated on 13th.
>> After my reply, there was silence for nine days.
>> What would have been your assumption about his concerns after my reply?
>> Mine was that he considers this not to be as critical enough for further
>> discussion - means he might still dislike having multikey dictionaries
>> but sees no reason in struggling about it.
> 
> I wouldn't make assumptions, I would explicitly ask.

Sorry I missed that in my previous answer.

I asked: "Although I don't share your thought about breaking a basic
data type with that, what would you suggest instead?"

Maybe this is not explicit enough. Maybe silence form wm4 on that
question was not explicit enough.

-Thilo