[FFmpeg-user] Why does the 'detelecine' filter exist?

[Mark Filipak]

On 29/05/2025 12.21, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 4:18 PM Carl Zwanzig <cpz at tuunq.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/28/2025 9:33 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2025 00.26, Carl Zwanzig wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2025 2:37 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
Somebody (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Nope, it's your assertion (to reuse), you defend it.
>>> I have nothing to defend.
>>
>> Then your assertions are without merit.
>>
>>>> Experience tells us that name reuse for different functionality does
>>>> not end well.
>>> What about for the same functionality? as is the case here.
>> (That was not stated in the original, the opposite was implied.)
>>
>> Then it's not reusing the name, is it? (It is not.)

Yes, it is reusing the name. Let me cite a case:
Suppose I were to create a new 'detelecine' filter.
Suppose I incorporated all the options that the current 'detelecine' filter uses so that existing 
scripts continue to work.
Suppose that my new 'detelecine' filter incorporates new options not found in the current 
'detelecine' filter.
That's a new filter that reuses the old filter's name

>>>> As for "it ought to be documented", then get with it;
>>> How?
>>
>> That was in the same paragraph as your excerpt.

?

>>>> ffmpeg is open source- you can download the source, make patches,
>>> Get serious.
>>
>> I was and am quite serious, why do you think otherwise? _You_ are the
>> one who wants doc changes but appear unwilling to even lift a finger to
>> help with that. Heck, you don't even make suggestions of what text to
>> change or what they should say.
> 
> This!

?

I can't "make patches". I'm not a 'C' programmer.