[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc/developer.texi: extend the argument for submitting patches

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Anton Khirnov
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:35 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc/developer.texi: extend
> the argument for submitting patches
> 
> Quoting Soft Works (2022-11-14 12:20:00)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > > Anton Khirnov
> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:08 PM
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> > > devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] doc/developer.texi:
> extend
> > > the argument for submitting patches
> > >
> > > Quoting Soft Works (2022-11-14 11:46:49)
> > > > > Sorry, but you problems are entirely self-inflicted. You have
> > > been
> > > > > told what changes need to happen right from the beginning,
> > > > > repeatedly, and by several developers independently.
> > > >
> > > > And those are completed and settled, like I had state multiple
> > > times.
> > > > It's ready for review for months already.
> > >
> > > Your stating something does not make it true, no matter how many
> > > times
> > > you do it.
> > >
> > > My objections were not addressed.
> > >
> > > In your last resend, Hendrik yet again raised the start_pts
> question.
> > > As
> > > far as I can tell, your explanation for why it's supposedly
> needed
> > > did
> > > not convince ANYONE.
> >
> > What means "as far as I can tell" here? Do you have something to
> > say about it, then please do?
> 
> It means that I am not aware of anyone who changed their stance based
> on
> your arguments, but cannot prove that no such person exists.

I'm afraid, but everything you are writing is making references to 
others and what they would think or what you are assuming that they
might think.

> I did read your document, and my takeaway message from it is "doing
> it
> properly is too hard". As long as that continues to be your position,
> you might as well not bother.

This is ridiculous, and you know that. Or at least you would know
if you would have really tried to understand the problem.

And that unfortunately applies to some others as well. Nobody is 
willing to go deep enough to the point where it becomes clear
that a "perfect" solution would only be possible by making fundamental
changes to libavfilter, which are complex, risky and something
that would never be accepted from me, even when it would be 
the most excellent solution. I think this is pretty clear to 
everybody here, and trying to present this in a light as if
I would just be too lazy to go for it, is just despicable, 
I'm afraid.

I wish you could stop referring to others potential opinions 
and get yourself as much into the subject as it is required to 
understand the actual problem and talk for yourself.

Because I would happily discuss alternatives 
with you and follow your advice, no matter when it takes 
a little more effort - as long as it will still be possible
to handle all cases like with the current patchset.
But I mean substantial and detailed advice based on an 
understanding of the problems, not the kind of "no, that's
bad, I don't believe you that it couldn't be done like I
think it's gotta be".

I will happily, gladly and friendly work and converse with 
anybody who would be so kind to leave one's peripheral 
spectator position and get down with me to the core 
problem and discuss potential solutions.

Thanks,
softworkz