[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] cmdutils: fix printing of codecs

[wm4]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:29:11 +0000
Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnuker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 February 2018 at 01:08, Muhammad Faiz <mfcc64 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:35 AM, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > On 2/7/2018 9:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:  
> > >> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:07:39PM +0000, Josh de Kock wrote:  
> > >>> Yes, my bad. It looked like it worked initially (was more
> > >>> worried about getting a fix out quickly), but it didnt. Try this one.
> > >>>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  fftools/cmdutils.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-  
> > -----------------------  
> > >>>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)  
> > >>
> > >> I dont know if this is supposed to fix the other lists
> > >> but
> > >> ./ffmpeg -demuxers
> > >> still returns nonsense with this patch
> > >>
> > >> File formats:
> > >>  D. = Demuxing supported
> > >>  .E = Muxing supported
> > >>  --
> > >>   E 3dostr          3DO STR
> > >>   E 4xm             4X Technologies
> > >> ...
> > >> a while ago this was returned:
> > >>
> > >> File formats:
> > >>  D. = Demuxing supported
> > >>  .E = Muxing supported
> > >>  --
> > >>  D  3dostr          3DO STR
> > >>  D  4xm             4X Technologies  
> > >
> > > Perhaps cdc78058c78dfa4966758a342acd2c1f3b282c46 should be reverted
> > > then. If the new API may actually get changed in the coming days once
> > > some consensus is reached then there's no point trying to get this
> > > working with things as is.  
> >
> > +1.
> > _______________________________________________
> > ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> > ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> >  
> 
> -1, there's no point in reverting this and then arguing for 3 weeks with
> people who will never use the API in the first place, don't understand the
> problem this patchset solved and just want to see their way be the only way
> things are done.
> We should fix this patch, fix another one if there's any and it'll be fine.

+1 to this, but on the other hand this patch is just for code that
_uses_ the new API, not the API itself.

I seriously hope nobody is arguing for reverting the API as is. It
didn't please everyone, but it's good and sufficient enough, and we
were in a bikeshed stalemate.