[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
> Anton Khirnov
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:14 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 16:13:29)
> > > 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.
> 
> Stop with the drama, please. You are not a persecuted misunderstood
> genius. Nobody here has a personal grudge against you. The reason
> people, including me, are objecting to your patches is that they are
> not
> fundamental enough. You want to redo the subtitle API in a major way,
> but keep it saddled with legacy hacks right from the start. We have
> enough of those already to know we don't want any more.

This is so disgusting!

Why can't you just point at those "legacy hacks" and tell how you 
want to have it done instead?

"not fundamental enough"?

Where why and how? 
And why do you keep bullshitting me with such nonsense statements?

What are your points? Which are your objections? Please show the 
code that you think is wrong and say how it should be done instead.

Thanks,
softworkz