[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] remove disabled code part 1

[Diego Biurrun]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:09:57PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:00:53PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:22:05PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:20:55PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 02:56:49PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:23:45PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:15:19AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > > > I started looking into disabled code, there is lots of it and probably
> > > > > > > mostly cruft.  Here is a patch that removes it, starting at the top
> > > > > > > level and the tests subdirectory.  More patches shall follow later.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I will commit approved hunks only.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > remaining hunks i didnt comment on are "dont know what it does exactly / not
> > > > > > sure if usefull"
> > > > > 
> > > > > The stuff from ffplay.c originates from the first revision of ffplay and
> > > > > has never been enabled.  Is this proof enough that it is cruft and
> > > > > should be removed?
> > > > 
> > > > .. ping ..
> > > 
> > > no, its not proof that its cruft and should be removed.
> > > Maybe it is cruft but age is no proof, I just like to understand what that
> > > code did before its droped ...
> > 
> > What could be proof then?  I just tried enabling the code, it does not
> > even link, since it references a nonexisting macro/function: QERGB.  A
> > function or macro by that name has *never* existed in FFmpeg, so the
> > code has *never* worked.  If that is not proof that the code is cruft,
> > then what can be?
> 
> i need to look at it again, if i can figure out what it was good for ...
> but ive higher priority things to do, thilo & gezas patches being 2

Just try to review it at some point please.  We add a lot of code very
quickly.  Sometimes we need to take a short break and clen up.  Note
also that we do not have many people working on cleanup and refactoring.

> > > If you or someone else can guess what it could have been good for? then we
> > > can make a decission based on that but i dont like throwing unopened boxes
> > > away ;)
> > 
> > Never heard of the following strategy to get rid of cruft after moving
> > houses?  Leave everything in boxes, do not unpack anything.  Then get
> > things out of the boxes strictly as you need them.  After a fixed time,
> > say a month or six months, you throw away all remaining boxes unopened.
> > 
> > :)
> 
> sell them on ebay ;)
> ... box full of old bank books ive not used since 6 month
> 
> seriously, i have a lot of stuff i certainly didnt use for 6 month laying
> around here, still they are usefull and i would not want to throw them
> away.
> throwig things away one didnt need in 6 month is
> * a waste of money if one does need them after that 6 month
> * creating more trash and humankind already creates alot, now if that is
>   burnt like it is often you also increase CO2 emissions

You are taken the suggestion much too literally...

Diego