[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Update docs according to new "ab" parameter unit

Benoit Fouet benoit.fouet
Tue Mar 6 20:02:13 CET 2007


Hi,

Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> Benoit Fouet wrote:
>> Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> Bottom line: -b has to act *as now*.
>> or to be suppressed ?
>
> Either.
>
well, in that case, i have submitted a patch too...
but this won't fix the 200kb/s default audio bitrate...

>>> -vb has to act reasonably, it needs not be 100% the same as -b, but
>>> its always better to apply the "principle of least astonishment", so
>>> yes, it would be better if -b and -vb were equivalent.
>>>
>> ok, that's what i understood, thanks for clarifying anyway...
>>
> [snip]
>
>>> OK, I think I see where the misunderstanding came in. If -b had not
>>> existed before, having -b for both would be a matter of taste. My
>>> point was that since -b *does* exist, its semantics should not be
>>> changed.
>>>
>> makes sense
>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> is it really a devil's choice ? 
>>> A devil's choice means both sides of the choice are unpleasant.
>>>
>> thank you, i really needed to be explained the meanings...
>
> Sorry, no offence was intended, I thought you thought it meant 'a
> devilishly difficult choice'. It is hard to gauge how much one's
> correspondant knows of colloquial English.
>
no problem Michel, and thanks for making it clear :)

>>>> won't you *always* choose the latter ?
>>> No, but it would be too long to explain why.
>>>
>> if you consider i cannot even understand "devil's choice", i do guess
>> you won't explain to me...
>
> Again, sorry. It would *really* be very long, the reasons are
> "historical reasons", and would also involve criticising some of my
> colleagues, so...
>
again, i am sorry too, i misunderstood what you wanted to tell (anyway,
it is the problem of mailing lists, i think :) )
and well, i understand you don't want to explain all this in this public
place !

> [snip]
>
>> when i think all of this came because of amr bitrates :)
>>
>> Well ok... what we really need (i guess) is to get back on what was
>> delivered on r8244, think about all this, and find the
>> "ffmpeg-devel-universal" way of handling this, don't we ?
>> so, if everyone's ok with that, this should be good if someone with svn
>> commit rights could do it, so that users don't "suffer" from our
>> misunderstanding...
>
the end of the message is still pending, i really think we / you should
act in one way (reverting the delivery 8244 from svn) or another (apply
(when reviewed) the patch i sent to deprecate -b option) so that people
checkouting svn revision between 2007-03-05 and
date-when-something-is-done won't come and complain too much about it...

that was my 8pm 2 cents, thanks for reading...

Ben






More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list