[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] seek print NOPTS

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Tue Oct 20 21:56:25 CEST 2009

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:17:53AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 10/20/2009 12:37 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:56:17AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2009 07:16 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:59:16PM +0200, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> this patch should fix the remaining unaligned output of seek test by
>>>>> printing
>>>>> "NOPTS" when the time stamp is AV_NOPTS_VALUE.
>>>> [...]
>>>> does not work on all supported archs?
>>>> if not then your patch is ok
>>> I would like to state that reactions are _a lot_ different than when 
>>> Ramiro
>>> submitted the first patch about this issue.
>>> Is it different treatment because of different patch submitter or time
>>> passed makes you more gentle and/or comprehensive ? :)
>> maybe its the difference between
>> - libc on windows is broken, can we workaround that?
>> and
>> - it would be nice to print something meaningfull instead of a funny
>>    number when the timestamp is not known. (and from 2 similar solutions
>>    pick the one that works on more platforms)
>> anyway, i dont remember much support for applying ramiros patch back
>> then, i cant read peoples minds ... in case people did want it applied
> Let me quote you:
> "
> Complicating the code for no apparent reason, the regression tests are
> just for developers knowing what they do. And someone not knowing what
> the big meaningless number is wont be able to make any sense of
> "AV_NOPTS_VALUE" either.
> "
> Besides I resurrected the thread myself, I call that support.
> Quoting Reimar:
> "Uh.. could you please explain the sense behind that? Because like this,
> you complicate the code _and_ it is just wrong..."
> Now changing to NOPTS is ok for cosmetics reason ? And you guys couldn't 
> suggest that in the first place ?
> Sorry but I cannot feel anything here than pure bias.

do you suggest we should all now re-read the old thread, and guess why
we wrote there what we did and then discuss if we are biased or reacted
inconsistently in a similar but not identical situation?

or could i maybe skip that reading and just agree with you that we are
humans? It would save me some time and as far as i can see, we dont seem
to have a disagreeent that is related to code in ffmpeg here, reimars
patch has been applied and noone disagreed ...

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
            can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.
-------------- 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/20091020/b2c12ac3/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list