[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc/developer.texi: extend the argument for submitting patches

[Paul B Mahol]

On 11/14/22, Soft Works <softworkz at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
>> Anton Khirnov
>> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:35 PM
>> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
>> devel at ffmpeg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc/developer.texi: extend
>> the argument for submitting patches
>>
>> Quoting Soft Works (2022-11-14 12:20:00)
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
>> > > Anton Khirnov
>> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:08 PM
>> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
>> > > devel at ffmpeg.org>
>> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc/developer.texi:
>> extend
>> > > the argument for submitting patches
>> > >
>> > > Quoting Soft Works (2022-11-14 11:46:49)
>> > > > > Sorry, but you problems are entirely self-inflicted. You have
>> > > been
>> > > > > told what changes need to happen right from the beginning,
>> > > > > repeatedly, and by several developers independently.
>> > > >
>> > > > And those are completed and settled, like I had state multiple
>> > > times.
>> > > > It's ready for review for months already.
>> > >
>> > > Your stating something does not make it true, no matter how many
>> > > times
>> > > you do it.
>> > >
>> > > My objections were not addressed.
>> > >
>> > > In your last resend, Hendrik yet again raised the start_pts
>> question.
>> > > As
>> > > far as I can tell, your explanation for why it's supposedly
>> needed
>> > > did
>> > > not convince ANYONE.
>> >
>> > What means "as far as I can tell" here? Do you have something to
>> > say about it, then please do?
>>
>> It means that I am not aware of anyone who changed their stance based
>> on
>> your arguments, but cannot prove that no such person exists.
>
> I'm afraid, but everything you are writing is making references to
> others and what they would think or what you are assuming that they
> might think.
>
>> I did read your document, and my takeaway message from it is "doing
>> it
>> properly is too hard". As long as that continues to be your position,
>> you might as well not bother.
>
> This is ridiculous, and you know that. Or at least you would know
> if you would have really tried to understand the problem.
>
> And that unfortunately applies to some others as well. Nobody is
> willing to go deep enough to the point where it becomes clear
> that a "perfect" solution would only be possible by making fundamental
> changes to libavfilter, which are complex, risky and something
> that would never be accepted from me, even when it would be
> the most excellent solution. I think this is pretty clear to
> everybody here, and trying to present this in a light as if
> I would just be too lazy to go for it, is just despicable,
> I'm afraid.
>
> I wish you could stop referring to others potential opinions
> and get yourself as much into the subject as it is required to
> understand the actual problem and talk for yourself.
>
> Because I would happily discuss alternatives
> with you and follow your advice, no matter when it takes
> a little more effort - as long as it will still be possible
> to handle all cases like with the current patchset.
> But I mean substantial and detailed advice based on an
> understanding of the problems, not the kind of "no, that's
> bad, I don't believe you that it couldn't be done like I
> think it's gotta be".
>
> I will happily, gladly and friendly work and converse with
> anybody who would be so kind to leave one's peripheral
> spectator position and get down with me to the core
> problem and discuss potential solutions.

They can not admit they have zero understanding why and how code works
Instead they propose some nonsense that hardly can be implemented.

>
> Thanks,
> softworkz
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>