[FFmpeg-devel] yesterdays libavfilter merge

Stefano Sabatini stefasab at gmail.com
Mon May 14 13:46:40 CEST 2012

On date Sunday 2012-05-13 09:35:20 +0200, Nicolas George encoded:
> Le duodi 22 floréal, an CCXX, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > The fork you are talking about contains several hundred known 
> > regressions over FFmpeg, if I ever mentioned more, I will 
> > have to make excuses to the people working so hard to keep 
> > their code at least compiling on some platforms.
> Sorry for distorting your words with regard to hundreds/thousands. But even
> like that, I find it opposite to my intuition, which is:
> A. there are bugs fixed in ffmpeg and not libav;
> B. there are bugs fixed in libav but not in ffmpeg due to different code
>    paths;
> C. there are bugs in ffmpeg introduced by the daily merge;
> D. there are bugs in ffmpeg introduced by our own changes.
> And while B and C are quite infrequent, I would be surprised if B+C+D did
> not, to a certain amount, compensate A.
> I am perfectly ready to accept your claim if you are sure of it.
> A few concrete examples would be nice, though, to serve as arguments in a
> discussion, for example if someone should decide to take the matter to the
> Debian community.
> > I never commented on the features but Kostya seem to have mentioned 
> > several times that they are all trivial / not needed.
> Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Yes please let's try to be *for* rather than *against* something,
let's focus on what we can do for FFmpeg rather than trying to win
this pissing off contest, nobody is going to win anyway.
FFmpeg = Faithful Fostering Mere Perennial Efficient Gospel

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list