[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr
Sun Jun 7 20:34:47 CEST 2009
Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:38:42AM +0100, Robert Swain wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 07:20:09PM +0100, Robert Swain wrote:
>>>> Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:21:23PM +0100, Robert Swain wrote:
>>>>>> OK, then I guess the only issue is a feature regression in that
>>>>>> libopencore-amrwb doesn't do encoding. As Diego points out, there's
>>>>>> nothing stopping people from using FFmpeg 0.5 or a version of svn from
>>>>>> before the libamr reference wrapper gets removed, but I'm not really
>>>>>> fond of feature regressions. Is there any good reason not to keep the
>>>>>> libamr-wb reference encoder wrapper?
>>>>> May I suggest that you read the 25+ messages in this thread before
>>>>> restarting the discussion at square one? Pros and cons have already
>>>>> been hashed out extensively and a consensus seemed to have been reached.
>>>>> If you have anything new to add, reply to the relevant subthread. Just
>>>>> raising the same concerns over and over again is inconstructive and
>>>>> leads nowhere.
>>>> I had actually read them but had forgotten about them as I was out of
>>>> the country so, I apologise for this. However, I didn't see a deadline
>>>> set for consensus to be reached.
>>>> Benoit had some reservations about feature regression then decided it
>>>> was OK, though I don't see him mention any compelling reason why he
>>>> changed his mind other than that removing non-free components is good.
>>>> Then Baptiste commented that he wasn't too keen on a feature regression
>>>> and you stated that it seemed a consensus had been reached. Then 3 days
>>>> after Baptiste's comment, you committed the OpenCORE support and said
>>>> you were going to remove libamr. A consensus has not been reached if not
>>>> everyone has accepted the same idea and it seems not everyone has.
>>>> I'm not sure how many people actually use AMR-WB encoding. I would guess
>>>> the parties interested would be mostly commercial.
>>>> I don't really know what option is best. It's non-free but removing it
>>>> would be a feature regression. Why did we have the AMR reference
>>>> implementation wrapped in the first place if not having non-free stuff
>>>> in FFmpeg was a major concern versus not having the feature?
>>> Quoting myself:
>>> Pros and cons have already been hashed out extensively and a consensus
>>> seemed to have been reached. If you have anything new to add, reply
>>> to the relevant subthread. Just raising the same concerns over and
>>> over again is inconstructive and leads nowhere.
>>> Of course it's a feature regression. But luckily there is no law
>>> against it. All you need are good reasons. We have done it before.
>>> There are good reasons now, so we can do it again.
>> No solid consensus was reached and there _was_ opposition to a
> There was a discussion where arguments were exchanged. The people who
> raised concerns appeared convinced after the discussion.
> Then Baptiste and later you jumped into the discussion without having
> read the previous discussion (or having forgot about it). If everybody
> does that it's very easy to mount a denial of service attack against the
> person proposing a change and thus against a consensus.
"Against a consensus" ? This is nonsense.
You cannot be against consensus. Either there is consensus, or not.
In this case there is _no_ consensus.
"Yes, thanks. Well I'm not sure we should remove a feature :/"
I can't see how you interpret this as being ok with the removal of
libamr, so to be clear: I'm against this removal.
There is no consensus, please don't claim there is or have been one.
Baptiste COUDURIER GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer http://www.ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel