[FFmpeg-cvslog] r23822 - in trunk: ffserver.c libavformat/avformat.h libavformat/gopher.c libavformat/http.c libavformat/internal.h libavformat/mmst.c libavformat/rtmpproto.c libavformat/rtpproto.c libavformat/rts...

[Diego Biurrun]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:42:49AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Monday 2010-06-28 23:04:13 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:30:09PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > On date Sunday 2010-06-27 16:16:46 +0200, mru wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- trunk/libavformat/avformat.h	Sun Jun 27 14:21:12 2010	(r23821)
> > > > +++ trunk/libavformat/avformat.h	Sun Jun 27 16:16:46 2010	(r23822)
> > > > @@ -1185,6 +1185,32 @@ int64_t av_gen_search(AVFormatContext *s
> > > >  int av_set_parameters(AVFormatContext *s, AVFormatParameters *ap);
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > > + * Split a URL string into components.
> > > 
> > > This is also changing the verbal form used, making it inconsistent
> > > with the sanctioned style (yes again the stupid
> > > impersonal-vs-third-person-form-holy-bikeshed).
> > 
> > That sure was one clever plot.  You and Michael ganged up on me and
> > Mans with the help of Java conventions.  I thought for a moment we knew
> > more English than you and had all Unix man pages, the POSIX specs and
> > most of the C environment to back us up.
> 
> I'll reply now and I promise to myself to not reply again, we all have
> more useful things to do than argue on which verbal form is The
> Correct One.
> 
> * we should better stick to already existing conventions rather than
>   hack up another variant of them (as it was discussed long time ago
>   for the documentation style)

You came up with the third person nonsense.  Maybe it was Michael.
In any case there was no existing convention.

> * there is no evidence that the impersonal form is *soo much* better
>   than the third person, indeed you yourself Diego, at some time
>   adopted the third person as the official style

I never did that.

> * saying that "we're more English speaker than you so we know better
>   despite any argumentation you may produce" is not a valid argument

This is broken logic.

> * saying "you ganged up on us to impose your choice", while on the
>   contrary I always strived to produce argumentations, is unfair and
>   impolite, and is not a valid argument

We produced valid arguments that were all trumped by nonsense.

> * even in the case there is an evidence that using FOO rather than BAR
>   is better, we should also consider the cost involved in the change
>   (that is the update of all the docs written so far, maybe the same
>   time could be spent better, for example by adding content)

Great.  First you make all documentation worse, then you say "Oh no,
now it's too costly to change it back!".  As I said, clever plot.

> * if you think that it is so important to prefer the impersonal form
>   over the third person, I don't (and I *never* did) oppose to that
>   change, provided that we're going to ship a *consistent* style for
>   all the docs
> * my point is always been about consistency rather than about the
>   preference of FOO over BAR, on which I never had a strong opinion.

Go right ahead and undo the damage you did then.

In the meantime, I step back as documentation maintainer.  Since I get
overruled by people who think they know better anyway, they might as
well do the complete job.

Diego