[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MS-GSM support: draft for review
Tue Nov 7 10:29:05 CET 2006
Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 06:13:37PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>> This is not the way I see collaboration to an open-source project. When
>> someone has something that works (in a domain where things didnt work or
>> were not implemented before), you may reject code that is *grossly*
>> wrong or bloated or slow; not because you find the style not one-liney
>> enough, or complicated enough, or obfuscated enough.
> I disagree. Why disregard quality standards just because it is new? If
> somebody appeared tomorrow with - say - a complete decoder for RealVideo
> 3.0 and 4.0 do we have to commit it immediately even though it's full of
> buffer overflows? Hardly ...
I wrote "wrong or bloated or slow". So your counterexample is not
> In general it's never a good idea to sacrifice maintainability for
But it is good to sacrifice it for one-liners and saving microseconds
when writing file headers? ROTFL.
>> With 30 years of experience under my belt, I would not tolerate that
>> attitude from my head of department, and I dont think I have to accept
>> it from you.
> Now calm down, no need to work up a temper :)
> Michael *is* the head of department around here
Simple question: why? I gladly recognize his expertise where fast
multimedia code is concerned, but his criteria about code quality are
definitely not the same as mine.
> and while he is strict,
> he is so with everybody and he always has good technical reasons for
> being so. Just split your patch into independent parts and it will be
> applied in no time...
Apparently not, Michael has junked *all* of it, and demanded an
implementation based on AVParser, mostly for reasons of Microsoft-bashing.
T +32  2 790 29 41
F +32  2 790 29 02
E mailto:mbardiaux at mediaxim.be
Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
More information about the ffmpeg-devel