[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] fix speex sample
Thu Apr 9 03:02:43 CEST 2009
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 05:26:11PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 4/8/2009 5:02 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 04:21:32PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2009 3:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> The multiple stsd feature is implemented, and I submited a patch, it
> >>>> depends on one seeking fix in aviobuf.c, for which I also sent a patch.
> >>>> Not mentioning that it takes me approximately 1 day to address issues on
> >>>> roundup relative to mov/mp4. Btw you are listed as maintainer for mov as
> >>>> well ;)
> >>>> This is effectively a different kind of maintainership.
> >>> it is not, you can look at avidec/enc and its also pretty bug free, or
> >>> msmpeg4 or the mpeg1/2 decoder ...
> >> msmpeg4 that should be true.
> >> Mpeg2 decoder has an important bug IMHO since some time. I reported it,
> >> and libmpeg2 does not have this bug and decodes correctly the first 2
> >> frames. I lack some knowledge of the surrounding code, but I tried to
> >> work on it at least. It should not take you much time to figure out the
> >> problem I guess.
> > thats a feature request not a bug, its something very well known since
> > the code was written.
> What was your argument about other implementation supporting it ?
> Oh yes, users will stop using yours to use the one supporting it.
> FYI, many of my samples use this mechanism, I just didn't really realize
> it, I thought it was just broken link but finally, I discovered that
> libavcodec deliberately _skip_ 2 frames, even without telling you !
> Solution is simple, until fixed I will use libmpeg2.
> >>> flv is a little worse but not much
> >>> and then there is mpeg-ts & ffserver for which i belive you are maintainer
> >>> now, they are not even remotely close to bugfree not even close to flvdecs
> >>> bugfreeness.
> >> AFAIK I'm not official maintainer of mpeg-ts, but I don't mind being
> >> maintainer and fixing bugs.
> > i see, so i will suspent all my work on mpeg-ts now
> I didn't know you were working on TS, may I see the patch ?
There where plenty of patches on the ML that received no real review or
no suggestions on how to make them acceptable IIRC.
I did not mean i have some unfinished patch for TS
> >> FFserver is certainly not bug free, however all roundup issue were
> >> closed and fixed AFAIK, and it's working quite ok for me.
> > issue238 and 797 have ffserver in the title and are open
> Humm right, it seems issue 238 is way old, I was not maintainer back in
> the days, and the version is damn old, I will close it.
> About 797, user should use AVOption ab now anyway so this is not an issue :)
> Thanks for helping me closing roundup issues.
its not hard to close issues while asking the user if its still buggy, one
could close anything that way
> > also there is no working ffserver regression test, you might have closed
> > all issues but as long as ffserver cant produce non random output its not
> > too usefull or did you fix this?
> I produces stable results here, however I'd be happy to receive feedback
> on failures.
if its stable, why is it not enabled in make test ?
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> but that's all right
> >>>>>> with me. Let's wait a few months ;)
> >>>>> you dont need to wait a few month before you fix your patch ;)
> >>>> Well, like you said pretty well, I can spend my time on something else
> >>>> than something maintainer is able to fix ;)
> >>>> I don't have problem with this file personally, someone submited this
> >>>> file. I just don't like bugs.
> >>>> If I were maintainer, I would have fixed it already, that's the whole
> >>>> point. I would even have addressed your comments on -cvslog and changed
> >>>> my original commit ;)
> >>> well, but you are not maintainer, and you will not become maintainer either
> >>> if that prevents you from fixing flvdec, thats a pitty, cant be helped i
> >>> guess.
> >> Yes it can be helped, and you know it.
> >> But that's no problem for me, it's just that I will have hard time
> >> excusing you for refusing to let it go while you keep saying you don't
> >> have time for it.
> >> You just cannot reasonably refuse to share maintainership and say that
> >> you don't have time to do it.
> > dont twist the truth
> > i do have time to review patches to flvdec.c i do not have the time nor
> > interrest to rewrite patches.
> I don't twist the truth IMHO.
> IMHO you do not have enough time to be the only maintainer for flv.
> _Only_ reviewing patch is not my idea of "maintainership".
> Maintainership is about reviewing _and_ coding by _enhancing_ and
> _fixing_ bugs.
iam not stoping others from enhancing and fixing, they dont need
to be "maintainer" for this.
What i insist on is reviewing changes before they are commited to flvdec.c
> > and i refuse you to take co maintainership because you commited broken code
> > already
> No, it's not broken. It fixed the issue and I'm still waiting for your
> "correct" fix since your last proposition does _not_ work.
> Furthermore you guessed something which was wrong since flv demuxer
> could not even return empty packets. How good is this ?
> Then I gave you the sample.
> > and submited a broken patch to flvdec thats 2 bad out of 2.
> No patch is _perfectly_ fine, and it actually fixes the problem.
> You just twisted specs to fit your arguments here, even Mike
> acknowledged my argument.
your patch is broken no matter which way you define sample_rate
> Please stop the FUD.
please accept that you are not and will not be flvdec maintainer
or co maintainer. This decisson is final.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel