[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] remove MSVC-specific

[Michel Bardiaux]

Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:39:01PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:53:27PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:47:25PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>> Also i assume that whoever wrote the 2 lines had tested them so i would guess
>>>>> they are more likely correct than not.
>>>> History proves that not (the ifdef was wrong sometime in-between) ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> And yes, i also would appreciate if we had some maintainer for MSVC related
>>>>> hunks.
>>>> And my main intention was to get some of those complainers (even if
>>>> their complaining is justified) to do something.
>>> Hmm if you think that breaking MSVC is effective in raising a volunteer
>>> for MSVC maintaince then by all means go ahead with the ritual.
>> Probably the reverse: it will reinforce the feeling (whether justified 
>> or not) that submitting contributions for MSVC support is pointless 
>> because they would be either rejected at once, or savaged later, by 
>> MS-bashers (of which there is certainly no lack here).
> 
> I do not know who you think of, but if you haven't noticed gcc,
> binutils, Solaris userland, OS/2 all have received similar levels of
> flames (and in the case of OS/2 IIRC much harder to reimplement code was
> removed than this MSVC stuff). 

I remember vividly when building with Mingw got you the message ?se a 
real OS"every time you used ffmpeg...

> Also IIRC for OS/2 things moved much more
> smoothly after people stopped insisting on ugly hacks.
> And even ICC support was not done in one step or even one day, and
> involved its share of flames.
> Sure, as a MSVC user expect to need a thicker skin for several reasons,
> but I think we have proven often enough that clean patches will get
> accepted even for a feature considered "useless" by most, though opinions
> of what is clean may differ.
> Maybe I missed something, but so far I have only seen people arguing for
> the MSVC stuff without any specific arguments, I can not even remember
> saying _explicitly_ that they use that code (though it is quite possible
> that they meant to say that).
> And lastly: if there are more than a handful MSVC users, you also have
> the option of doing a fork and keeping it up to date, thereby proving
> that there are people willing to maintain that stuff and it is mot much
> effort to maintain.

You know perfectly well its not really an option, because under the 
rules of the ffmpeg lists, the fork would have to do *all* the support 
for its users. Not just support of the parts not in the mainstream svn.

> But from my point of view the situation seems a lot like with releases:
> lots of complaining, little work actually done.

-- 
Michel Bardiaux
R&D Director
T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
E mailto:mbardiaux at mediaxim.be

Mediaxim NV/SA
Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
http://www.mediaxim.com/