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

[Thilo Borgmann]

Am 27.03.16 um 15:53 schrieb wm4:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:12:17 +0100
> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
> 
>> Am 25.03.16 um 21:12 schrieb wm4:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:41:40 +0100
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>> 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 pinged the patch again on 22nd, and it took about one minute for wm4
>>>> to address his concerns again. However, after me asking for his
>>>> suggestions there was again silence for days. Also note that he did not
>>>> stated his concerns more specifically than before.
>>>>
>>>> So I waiting for around 12 days (including a ping) to get a more
>>>> specific remark, counter-proposal, discussion or anything else than a
>>>> basic concern. During that time wm4 was active and very well capable of
>>>> immediate reply. Thus I assume that his attitude about this patch is not
>>>> as bad as insisting not to apply.
>>>>
>>>> I still really can't see a "I'm done waiting and just pushing" attitude
>>>> from my side.  
>>>
>>> You were adding weird new public API just to internally parse some
>>> really weird syntax. I hoped other would voice their concern too, but
>>> nobody did, so who cares, I guess.  
>>
>> Which means my assumption about your attitude to this patch was not
>> totally wrong. Also you did not reply at all when I asked for your
>> suggestions.
> 
> I don't particularly care for this issue (which is why I've mostly
> remained silent). I just wish we wouldn't change the public API in
> frivolous and tricky ways (such as suddenly allowing duplicate keys)
> without much discussion.

True and I absolutely share this opinion. I obviously was ok with the
change. You raised your voice but decided not to discuss. That is why it
didn't happen.

Everyone sharing your viewpoint regarding that change and not willing,
able or caring enough for that particular issue to raise their voice
like you did must have been grateful. All of these might have thought
that you will take care of their concerns, I assume.

-Thilo