[Ffmpeg-devel] [RFC] ffmpeg-windows mailinglist?
Wed Aug 2 03:09:21 CEST 2006
On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:10:50PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:16:31PM -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>> On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> FWIW, I have seen several patches of interest to me go completely
>>> ignored on this list.
> yeah iam curious too ...
The only examples I can find with thread view on the archives being
such a nightmare were two that I had special interest in, wherein a
couple of macosx-related configure changes were ignored until they
were posted a second time (after waiting 3 days for a response in
>>> Also, I've seen some patches (primarily mactel
>>> ones) be rejected in a fashion such that the author of the patch
>>> decides that his efforts on ffmpeg are a waste and that mactel
>>> support is unwelcome, not unlike MSVC compile fix patches.
>> Workarounds for compiler bugs are generally not accepted in FFmpeg,
>> especially not for MSVC, which simply ignores the C standard.
> you could even say as MSVC doesnt follow the c standard its not a
> c compiler and as such patches to support MSVC are almost porting
> ffmpeg to another programming language :)
I feel that, MSVC is a beast to get things to support, and the
website does /say/ that MSVC support is unwelcome.
>> The mactel situation is unfortunate because it may not be possible to
>> support the currently available toolchain without intrusive hacks
>> are unlikely to be accepted. Also some requests for changes in those
>> patches were never fulfilled, I reviewed some of the build system
> yes, macintel and windows patch authors have the strong tendency to
> our comments to their patches, and then they come back and whine
> that we
> didnt apply their patch, of course we cant as they ignore our comments
> the dr-ffmpeg patches are another such example
Usually the comments boil down to "this is ugly" or something similar
with no feedback on what could make the patch "pretty" enough to be
accepted. As an example, taken from <http://svn.cod3r.com/perian/
- ".balign 16 \n\t"
+# define BALIGN_8 ".align 3 \n\t"
+# define BALIGN_16 ".align 4 \n\t"
+# define BALIGN_8 ".balign 8 \n\t"
+# define BALIGN_16 ".balign 16 \n\t"
Is this really so ugly as to be a scar upon the codebase? If not,
then what in the linked patch is truly so objectionable?
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint:
> In the past you could go to a library and read, borrow or copy any
> Today you'd get arrested for mere telling someone where the library is
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at mplayerhq.hu
More information about the ffmpeg-devel