[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] Remove redundant XShmGetEventBase declaration

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 8/11/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:02:32AM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> On 8/10/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 05:51:31PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> >> On 8/9/08, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:38:45PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 07:58:39PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> >> > Here is a patch to remove a redundant XShmGetEventBase
>> >> >> > declaration from libvo/vo_x11.c and libvo/vo_xvmc.c, which
>> >> >> > dates back to r2(!). If this is really a problem, there should
>> >> >> > be a proper check in configure, not a hackish declaration
>> >> >> > duplicated over multiple files.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Will apply on the weekend.
>> >>
>> >> Revert or I will do it.
>> >
>> > I will not.  Myself, Uoti and Attila have spoken up in favor of this
>> > giving good reasons.  You failed to address, much less refute, our
>> > points.
>>
>> I am in my right as maintainer to request your removal of hacks to
>> be because you have fixed them properly, not because they are hacks.
>>
>>
>> In case you haven't understood my previous mail.
>>
>> I've never rejected that this redundant declaration is... questionable.
>
> Well, you never gave any arguments except "Rejected.".  At least you are
> agreeing now...
>
>> What I want is proper check, as you and Attila both propose in your mails.
>
> False.  I said if *you* want to keep it, implement a configure check.
>
> I repeat what I have said before: This has been used in MPlayer for all
> eternity in other places *without* the extra declaration and problems
> never showed themselves.  A check in configure is unnecessary.
>
>> If you don't do that, then I would consider that your violations of the
>> rules means that the maintainer system is no longer valid,
>> along with any rules I do not find reasonable (or do not like).
>
> What, pray tell, is a maintainer?  Because you are just a maintainer on
> paper, that is for sure.  Also, three developers are clearly in favor of
> this change, including the former X11 maintainer.  When would you
> consider yourself overruled?  Don't tell me the answer is never...

Diego, stop trying to evade rules
by making up new ones in your favor.

Your time is still running.