[FFmpeg-cvslog] r17317 - trunk/libavcodec/mpegvideo_xvmc.c

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:34:12PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:12:57PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:04:59PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 07:49:26PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:59:48PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:06:24AM +0100, iive wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Log:
> > > > > > > Check all critical xvmc struct fields in ff_xvmc_field_start()
> > > > > > > and log error if they are not correct. All other functions
> > > > > > > are supposedly called after that one, so use assert() for them.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > and 1 point for you too for the assert/if cleanup
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >      if (render->filled_mv_blocks_num) {
> > > > > > >          av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,
> > > > > > > -               "Rendering surface contains %i unprocessed blocks\n",
> > > > > > > +               "Rendering surface contains %i unprocessed blocks.\n",
> > > > > > >                 render->filled_mv_blocks_num);
> > > > > > >          return -1;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > i think ive warned you at least once already to split things sanely and not
> > > > > > commit random trash and there also was the leet reindent ...
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > -5, next time its 10 for you & diego if you mix cosmetics & functional changes
> > > > > 
> > > > > No penalty for committing a duplicated hunk? ;-p
> > > > 
> > > > i only remember it was the same as the one for peeing on your comrands feet
> > > > so it doesnt matter anyway ;)
> > > 
> > > I thought part of the challenge was to review each other's commits and
> > > detect breakage?  You said explicitly that penalties would be given
> > > if the other gladiator noticed them and sent mail to -cvslog...
> > 
> > yes but the duplicated hunk didnt break anything, or?
> 
> Isn't the goal of the contest to attempt to produce near-perfect code? :)
> 
> > you pointed it out, it was fixed,
> > also i think it was a mistake to ask each other to pont errors out the
> > idea behind was just that i was too lazy to test each commit and that you 2
> > could do it for me :)
> > it was never intended to become some pissing match about every little typo
> 
> Well, it *is* a deathmatch... ;-)
> 
> I know I'm very nitpickish, I'm not implying that every typo should
> entail a penalty.  It just don't think it's just to penalize an indent
> commit that might have been split or not and leave duplicated hunks
> and breaking the header twice unpunished...

the difference is i explicitly mentioned spliting i did not mention
duplicated hunks, and i dont like changing rules in the middle of a
game even if the new rules might make more sense ...

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults. -- Antisthenes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-cvslog/attachments/20090215/087ac60f/attachment.pgp>