[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avutil: Add Simple loop detector

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:35 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> > Aug 14, 2019, 19:29 by michael at niedermayer.cc:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Lynne wrote:
> > >
> > >> Aug 12, 2019, 20:53 by michael at niedermayer.cc:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 08:30:51PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On 08.08.2019, at 10:36, Michael Niedermayer
> <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > This provides an alternative to retry counters.
> > >> >> > Useful if there is no reasonable maximum number of iterations and
> > >> >> > no ordering that naturally avoids loops.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Going by the old principle of "an API is not tested until it has
> at least 3 users"
> > >> >> might it make sense to delay this until we've found and tested it
> in a few use-cases?
> > >> >> Depending on how much hurry there is to get the bug-fix in.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I assume there is also an actual bug-fix patch somewhere, maybe we
> should have that
> > >> >> in the same patch series to make it easier to review the actual
> usage?
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > sure will repost this eventually with 3+ bugfixes.
> > >> > But wont search for such bugs ATM as ive too many other things to do
> > >> > so it might take a bit of time before i do
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > diff --git a/doc/APIchanges b/doc/APIchanges
> > >> >> > index 6603a8229e..eee4c30ec5 100644
> > >> >> > --- a/doc/APIchanges
> > >> >> > +++ b/doc/APIchanges
> > >> >> > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ libavutil:     2017-10-21
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > API changes, most recent first:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > +2019-XX-XX - XXXXXXXXXX - lavu 56.XX.XXX - loop_detector.h
> > >> >> > +  Add loop_detector.h, av_is_loop(), AVSimpleLoopDetector
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Does is mean it is a public/installed header?
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > that was intended, but it can of course be trivially be kept local
> if people
> > >> > prefer when i repost with 3+ dependant fixes
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're
> doing this, nor even the second.
> > >> I still do no think even with 3 bugfixes this deserves to be in lavu
> but rather in every library as a non-installed header, at the very most. I
> still prefer for code to be duplicated for such a small amount of fixes.
> > >> Iit could encourage other developers to put this in their code when
> it isn't needed when a properly written loop would never go infinite.
> > >> And, regardless where this code goes, its still as its been pointed
> out, a hack.
> > >>
> > >
> > > why are you agressive ?
> > >
> >
> > I can't find a single hint of aggression in my email. I'm being direct
> and factual.
> > If you see this as aggression you shouldn't read any specifications or
> reports, you'll find yourself very offended.
>
> What i refered to as agressive is
> "You are ignoring 2 developers, and this isn't the first time you're doing
> this, nor even the second."
>
> Lets look at this claim by claim
>
> "You are ignoring 2 developers"
>
> I do not, i noted that 2 people dislike this patch and i will eventually
> post
> a new patchset. If that is still disliked by 2 then we need to look at what
> the oppinion of the 2 people will be exactly about that new patchset.
> The 2 developers have not seen a not yet written patchset only thing really
> known is who the author of the patchset will be.
>
>
> "and this isn't the first time you're doing this, nor even the second."
>
> This is a simple ad hominem attack, we know who you speak of (me) but
> noone can
> know what issues you talk about so noone can verify this or correct or
> improve
> anything.
>
>
> "its still as its been pointed out, a hack."
>
> If you see some issue in the code you should explain what issue that is and
> not just call the code a "hack". Because noone knows what you refer to and
> there is nothing that can be done about issues that noone knows what they
> refer to.
>
>
> Another example of aggression from you is (IRC from a few hours ago)
>
> <Lynne> irc logs off? irc logs off.
> <Lynne> carl not here? carl not here.
> <Lynne> nicolas is an awful person who disagrees with everything and does
> no work like ever, yet hangs around the ml to be obnoxious
> <Lynne> his opinions on asserts should disqualify him from working on any
> library ever
> <durandal_1707> add reimar to that list
> <Lynne> I'll remove that assert if I push that patch, just because maybe
> he'll fuck off then
> <durandal_1707> they only work toward covering michael
> <Lynne> reimar does, nickolas is just there to misunderstand and be
> annoying and demanding
>
> just stop these attacks/insults against people.
>

Not until all mplayer people are not longer part of organization.

You called for it by this behavior.


>
> Thanks
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> You can kill me, but you cannot change the truth.
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".