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

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Paul B Mahol
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:18 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
> 
> 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.

I'm not saying that and I have no doubt they could..

sw