[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Merge libavcore into libavutil

[Måns Rullgård]

Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> writes:

> On date Sunday 2011-02-13 16:18:12 +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd encoded:
>> Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> writes:
>> 
>> > On date Sunday 2011-02-13 16:06:10 +0100, Luca Barbato encoded:
>> >> On 02/13/2011 03:53 PM, Kostya wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 07:36:15AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> >> >> It is pretty hopeless that other considerable projects will adopt
>> >> >> libavutil alone in other projects. Projects that need small footprint
>> >> >> are better off with more specialized libraries such as gnulib or rather
>> >> >> just copy the necessary parts that they need. With this in mind, nobody
>> >> >> is helped by having libavutil and libavcore split. In order to ease
>> >> >> maintenance inside and around FFmpeg and to reduce confusion where to
>> >> >> put common code, avcore's functionality is merged (back) to avutil.
>> >> > 
>> >> > I think that's right thing to do and patch looks ok to me.
>> >> 
>> >> Just to be clear, the patch looks fine and we should try to first agree
>> >> on what's in what before splitting libraries in the future.
>> >
>> > This situation is quite paradoxical, as when the library was created
>> > no-one objected to it, or I wouldn't have committed the change in the
>> > first place.
>> 
>> Both my memory and the archives[1] tell a different story, one where
>> _everybody_, including you[2], was against this split.  After some
>> discussion, you reversed course and committed the split with only a
>> single approval (from Michael).
>>
>> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/112847
>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/113329 
>
> Yes but then nobody raised more objections, I wanted to have the thing
> settled (indeed I was quite indifferent to the two alternatives, as I
> am mostly now, with a slight preference for the split), and you
> yourself approved the parts of the patch under your maintainership
> (which I interpreted as: "mans is not against the change).

My approval was of the syntax, not the split as such.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com