[MPlayer-dev-eng] libvo changes

[Uoti Urpala]

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 21:44 +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:14 +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> >  > 0008: This one would require separate discussion. Does we really need
> >  > input methods to hold pointers to video output structures?
> >
> >  You don't seem to understand the purpose of the change. It's not for
> >  "video output structures" specifically. If globals and static variables
> >  are removed then any callback must have a context variable, otherwise it
> >  can access no data.
> 
> And the discussion is already fact.

Yes more time wasted by your baseless complaints.

> >  > Adding check for success of the (escaped) block is functional change
> >  > and should not be grouped with the cosmetics.
> >
> >  What added check? I think you misread the patch.
> ---
>      }
> +    if (!ctx->xv_format)
> +        return -1;

Which is removed from another indentation level (was it really SO hard
to see that you didn't even spot it on the second time?).

> This is normal procedure when cleaning up code.  Doing small changes
> that are obviously correct,easy to check and work like before.

I can confidently say that I know how to refactor code better than you
do.

> >  > I understand that you may be tempted to reject my review and requests
> >  > simply because you should redo a lot of code and probably make a lot
> >  > of other changes you don't want to.
> >
> >  I think your review is of rather little value because it points out no
> >  bugs that I would have missed and contains no suggestions that would
> >  concretely improve the code.

> >  >  However this is the price you pay
> >  > when you work in isolation and create a huge set of changes.
> >  > It won't help if you ultimatively propose your changes and demand from
> >  > us to accept them simply because you are the one writing them.
> >
> >  "In isolation" and "ultimately" in this case meaning I post the changes
> >  within a couple of days of writing them.
> >
> >  I'm not going to rewrite the changes in a different order based on your
> >  whims when there is no reason to believe the end result would be any
> >  better.
> 
> Not that I expected you to take any advice from anybody.
> I really wonder how you become developer when you are not eager to
> accept  even requests for simple changes.

I did make some changes based requests from others. But I'm not going to
change things when there is no concrete problem and you just complain
that things don't match your taste while not doing anything useful.

> My code requirements are simple:

You don't have a management position where you'd set requirements while
watching from the side.

> p.s.
> Probably I won't have so much free time again to talk about preferred styles.
> It may take me some more time to comment when you update your patches.

Since you don't seem to have anything useful to say don't bother wasting
your (and others') time commenting.