[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/5] movenc: simplify codec_tag lookup
Marton Balint
cus at passwd.hu
Mon Jul 3 19:54:56 EEST 2017
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 16:17:42 +0100
>> Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/3/2017 2:18 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> > breaks fate
>>>
>>> I'll look into it tonight; busy today.
>>>
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> Aside:
>>>
>>> I'll just add, though, that these two word 'breaks fate' emails
>>> are kind of obnoxious when the test in question was added days
>>> after I sent the set, so I couldn't have possibly tested against
>>> it, and the commit that added the test and this email has /zero/
>>> info about what the test actually tests (a bug id is not a commit
>>> message).
>>
>> This. These opaque fate tests are so much work to get around. It went
>> far enough that I added bullshit to ffmpeg.c to get around some of the
>> questionable tests.
>>
>> Also, TRAC issue numbers have 0 information contents. Even if you go
>> through the obnoxious process of looking it up on TRAC and trying to
>> extract iunformation from a confusing discussion with a confused user
>> (99% of TRAC issues), TRAC could easily go away. It already happened
>> once, and some of the bug numbers in old commits obviously don't match
>> with what's on current TRAC.
>>
>
> I agree, this test could've easily been named something useful, like
> fate-mp4-copy-eac3 or whatever namespaces we use for mp4 tests, which
> would convey the same information without having to lookup the ticket
> on trac.
>
Can't the project pay someone to make fate tests from fixed trac tickets?
Or make this an outreachy goal, like API tests, or something like that.
Regards,
Marton
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list