[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec: Add interface to motion estimation

wm4 nfxjfg at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 1 12:12:50 CEST 2015

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:50:15 +0000 (UTC)
Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote:

> wm4 <nfxjfg <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> > Oh yes, politically Libav wasn't successful.
> Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you:

Oh come on, you misunderstand intentionally anyway.

Or does Hanlon's razor come into effect?

I really don't know what puts your hateful, ignorant posts into a
better light.

Maybe you could just try to make a real effort at reconciliation once,
or even just understanding your opponent?

> Gentoo and Debian did not switch from avconv 
> to FFmpeg for technical reasons, but only for 
> political reasons?
> And, consequently, the changes from FFmpeg to 
> avconv were purely technically and not politically 
> motivated?

Actually, most issues were probably caused by comparing ancient
distro-packaged avconv versions to very recent ffmpeg releases (because
especially Debian and Ubuntu really love... erm... packaging old
software, and also slower Libav release cycles).

> > Keep in mind that FFmpeg merged _everything_ 
> > from Libav
> I believe you know very well that this is not true.

Oh, but it is true. Definitely. It's a fact. Some things were undone on
merge, or parked as components not used by default (like duplicated
encoders), but in the end basically everything was merged. Especially
the beneficial changes. I haven't heard a single acknowledgment from
you that Libav did good changes that were useful to FFmpeg too.

Don't go around and spread lies (even if by omission). You're being
incredibly dishonest.

> And I find it funny that you wrote a long 
> justification above why everything had to be 
> merged and here, you use it as an argument why 
> FFmpeg is bad (that's at least how I read it).
> I was always very angry reading this argument 
> in your blog post and I always thought you are 
> among the strongest supporters of avconv. Funny 
> that this very blog post was one of the main 
> reasons why the distros switched...

I don't have a blog and never had one. What the fuck are you even
talking about?

Your verbal "tic" of calling Libav avconv is also one of those WTFish

> > So there are 3 ways to fix something:
> > 1. Never change the API. Well, now you can't fix the API, have fun.
> > 2. Add new APIs and maintain the old APIs concurrently. You will have
> >    to maintain a dozen of API revisions, and users will also have to
> >    deal with an API that provides the same thing under dozens of
> >    APIs. What could possibly go wrong?
> > 3. You add improved APIs, deprecate the old ones, and finally remove
> >    them.
> > 
> > Which do you pick? If it's 3, what is your complaint again?
> In reality, it is of course 3, but as said above, 
> users switched from avconv from FFmpeg because we 
> tried to do 2, so it cannot be as bad as you paint 
> it.

But you agree that 3. is best? So what do you want to keep doing? Do
you admit that 2. is not ideal? If so, why did you try to pursue it? To
"beat" Libav? That would explain a lot of bullshit that was defended
for political reasons, even though it was technically terrible.

(My favorite thing is still the optional Libav ABI support.)

> But I believe this was not the issue in this thread 
> afaiu.
> > The mess also slows down FFmpeg development.
> So do you want faster or slower development?
> I fear you will have to decide...

Faster of course, but not by just allowing low quality patches in for
the sake of quickly adding obscure features.

In fact, the goal is having an easily hackable codebase, so that
contributors actually have it easier to write good patches, instead of
having to write horrible hacks to reach their goals. Can you understand
this statement?

> [...]
> I don't really understand the rest of your post, 
> but it sounds very, very similar to what you 
> suggest so strongly (and with changing arguments!) 
> to "fix" your issue yesterday;-)

If you mean the alpha issue, the only reason you rejected this change
was because it was "slow", without even providing numbers.

> In the end, there is only one question remaining:
> If avconv did such a wonderful job, why didn't you 
> support them? Don't you agree (now) that they would 
> have needed it?

I did send patches to Libav.

But I guess by "support" you mean taking politically position for Libav
and against FFmpeg. Sorry, but not all people are like you.

(Also, didn't you write above that you always thought I was a strong
supporter of Libav?)

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list