[Ffmpeg-devel] Matroska Patch
Wed Mar 22 15:15:00 CET 2006
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:16:01PM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> >>Most of the fixes found in this patch are fixes for *all* existing
> >>Matroska files. I don't think I have to send any. Just open one in
> >>FFMPEG and you'll see. I described all the fixes included in this patch.
> >>So you have #1, #2, #3, #4.
> >well, you dont have to do anything, just if you want a bug fixed or
> >patch accepted then you will have to follow the same rules as everyone else
> >now if you had a constructive comment about the rules or suggestions
> >for their improvement that would be fine too, but you just waste our time
> I have nothing against the rules. Just the way code is turned down. Like
> the MPEG2 fix I sent that you know better than me how to fix it, but you
well, there seems to be a missunderstanding here if someone sends a buggy/
wrong/unaceptable bugfix it wont be applied but this doesnt mean anyone from
the team is obliged to spend their time fixing _YOUR_ bug. your view is very
> I wish you would apply the same strict rules to you than anyone
> else. Committing untested code and turning down tested fixes for
> cosmetic reason is more than questionable.
well, you refused to provide me with a file to test the demuxer, so
how should i test it?
* you send total trash (probably just a diff of your development version)
* containing cosmetical changes (cvs policy violation)
* ignore questions about what some part of the patch is supposed to do
* complain loudly that we dont apply your trash
* complain that we dont fix and cleanp your messy patch
* refuse to provide us with a sample to test it
* complain that we dont test our much cleaner version
what exactly did you do except post a single messed up patch
and then flamed?
so, from now on, no disscussions anymore, send patches or dont, if you
do ill review them and you can then either fix _everything_ we tell you
or you can accumulate that trash in DrDivx
More information about the ffmpeg-devel