[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH][0/4]: MMS base and MMSH implementation

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Mon Jan 7 15:48:34 CET 2008

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:04:43PM +0100, Bj?rn Axelsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 23:03 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:29:26PM +0100, Bj?rn Axelsson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 11:00 +0100, Bj?rn Axelsson wrote:
> > > > This is basically the same as my old MMS patch, only somewhat updated
> > > > and split into smaller patches (one per file).
> > > > 
> > > > Patch 1 and 2 are only new files and can be applied in any order.
> > > > Patch 3 depends on 1 and 2, but still only touches the new files.
> > > > The fourth patch in this series contains the makefile changes and
> > > > protocol registration code, and should not be applied before the other
> > > > three are applied. Only when this patch is applied can the new code  be
> > > > compiled and used.
> > > > 
> > > > The complete series passes "make test".
> > > 
> > > Ping?
> > > This has hasn't been reviewed in two weeks. Please let me know if I can
> > > do anything more to help.
> > 
> > spliting the patch per files, (it seems thats what you did) does not help
> > me review it actually it makes it harder, what would help is split it
> > in some self contained way
> Splitting into seperate files seemed like a useful compromise to me,
> since it would allow me to fix minor issues in a single file without you
> having to review everything again. 

The problem is these files are highly dependant on each other, its not really
possible to say ok to one without also saying ok to all others.
As example just take mms_private.h i cant really say anything about anything
in there without fully reviewing the code which uses the specific part. Take
one state of the state machine, ask the question if this state is needed.
You cant awnser that without the code using that state.
Or ask the more general question if the state machine is needed at all.

I wont accept the messy state machine without being certain that it is
impossible to reimplement it cleaner. To which of the files could i say
ok without saying ok to the state machine? none?
And the state machine is just one part ...

> I would also like to remind you about the av_url_read_fseek_api.diff
> patch that was never applied:
> http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2007-December/039248.html

Sending several patches in a single mail is a perfect recipe to have some
of them lost, others have been hit by this as well.
Anyway the av_url_read_fseek_api patch does not look very important, it
just changes a doxy comment ...

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- 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-devel/attachments/20080107/1047dee0/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list