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

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:10:23PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> 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 rules means that the maintainer system is no longer valid,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.

I see you have chosen to resort to referring to rules and authority
instead of engaging in constructive and rational discussion.

No surprises.

Diego