[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter/buffersrc: switch to activate

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:46 PM Nicolas George <george at nsup.org> wrote:

> Vittorio Giovara (12023-11-06):
> > Nice try but pointing out your logical fallacies is not being rude, but
> > rather is just showing you how easily your message can be misinterpreted,
>
> You have done nothing of the sort. You have just misrepresented my
> words, showing that you decided to barge into a conversation without
> knowing its details.
>

No, you barged out and started calling fair arguments "bullshit" while I'm
trying to have a polite discussion.
I'm not misrepresenting anybody's words, just making sure you understand
how belittling and prone to misinterpretation your comments are due to
harsh style of communication. I think I'm advising you to improve that
through the lines in order to have better success in getting your point
across.

>           And yes, asking for time when you yourself do not provide a
> > timeline is equivalent to vetoing a patch (indefinitely too, since you
> > yourself say you "will review this issue when [you] have the time", which
> > could very well be never).
>
> And now you are accusing me of outright dishonesty. Better and better.
>

I'm not a lawyer, this is not a trial, nobody's accusing you of anything.
I'm just pointing out the facts that lead to *a* reasonable conclusion, you
could prove me wrong by providing a sound technical discussion but you
insist in this syllogistic battle, hence the long off topic, and the
continued bickering.


> > I feel like, once again, we've exhausted this topic
>
> You have exhausted because you barged in without knowing the first thing
> about it.
>

No, we've exhausted the topic because you insist on playing the "who is
right" game with someone who has no stake in the matter. Right now, if I
acted like you do, I'd start a long paragraph saying something like "oh
this is a process of intentions" or "so you're accusing me of barging in,
this rude/dishonest/$adjective", but instead I'm patiently trying to bring
the discussion back to the technical points raised previously. Can we focus
on them please?


> > Please justify your objections to the proposed solution,
>
> I have already done so, but again you neglected to read it: if there is
> a bug, it is in the framework code.
>

Paul already explained why it is not, in the email starting with "Sorry to
hear your deep feelings and failed realizations for this topic and in
FFmpeg in general."
You seem to have neglected to read it and reply to the points made there.
-- 
Vittorio