[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Multiple inclusion guards in headers
Mon Aug 18 00:38:24 CEST 2008
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:52:13PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:22:08PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:06:09PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:40:46PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:15:30PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing is gained by committing rubbish intermediate versions to the
> > > > > repository
> > > >
> > > > it is not rubbish, it is the hisorically correct version.
> > >
> > > Nothing is gained by preserving a history of
> > >
> > > r1: fix typo
> > > r2: forgot ;
> > > r3: compile fix
> > > r4: real compile fix
> > > r5: this time, real real compile fix
> > I never commited such trash
> > > By the same token, some history *may* be worth preserving, but things
> > > like
> > >
> > > #if 1 --> #if TEST
> > >
> > > are just clutter and add no value at all. It's better to commit the
> > > correct version right away.
> > i like commits cleanly split
> Very well, but my point still stands. It's not worth documenting every
> little mistake in the subversion history. I never said that all
> revisions of pca.[ch] you committed are worthless, but some are just
> useless clutter that should better have been merged into the initial
which version do you think is useless?
The original really was not a mistake it was intended that way when it was
written. Nowadays testing code is under #ifdef TEST so i changed it to that
This is IMHO valid history not some "ooh it doesnt compile"
It is not some history ive extracted from somewhere, it is the file as i
had it (and that was working just not integrated into current ffmpeg) and
then myself fixing & integrating things.
> > > > Here with pca.c/h i posted the files and after ramiro the next days said he
> > > > could use them, i commited and then cleaned them up. Where where you all
> > > > the time, you did not consider reviewing the patches it seems, but are
> > > > rather quick at adding meaningless single word replies to commits of
> > > > patches that HAD been posted previously.
> > >
> > > Yes, I missed that it seems. I'm plenty busy with other things already,
> > > helping SoC students among other things.
> > >
> > > It's not like I have done anything that would warrant you throwing around
> > > sarcasm in commit messages. Which is extremely annoying because commit
> > > messages are an important part of the project history.
> > When i commit something that
> > 1. has been posted previously and received no comments
> > 2. clearly in its commit message says that ill clean it up immedeatly
> > i really do not see why you and mans have to jump in with attacks about
> > every little thing.
> I complained about exactly one thing: wrong license headers. This you
> did not clean up. Nor did you seem to have noticed the problem, so my
> comment was not redundant at all.
> If you disliked that I just said *sigh* instead of repeating the same
> things all over again, well... you're guilty or running out of patience
> yourself sometimes. I just got annoyed at what I considered another
> blatant disregard for project rules you consider unimportant.
I did not commit the license header refering to a non existing license
intentionally. And when you complained i thought it was about some minor
wording like "This library" vs. "ffmpeg"
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his
enemies for the hardest victory is over self. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel