[FFmpeg-devel] c99wrap.exe and c99conv.exe
derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com
Wed Nov 21 22:38:02 CET 2012
On 21/11/2012 4:17 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> You said that:
> "And all three of the authors have specifically said it is supposed to be generic
> and any breakage in FFmpeg is considered a bug in the converter. On many occasions.
> Over many months. This is apparently not enough. So tell me, if it's not a trust issue,
> (as in you don't believe us), what is it?"
> Iam just curious about which statements from "all three of the authors"
> "On many occasions", "Over many months" you are refering to
> it seems pivotal in your escalation of this thread from
> a technical question into a "ohh you dont trust us" drama
> iam curious if i missed some statements or if i lost some mails or
> something else ?
It's been brought up on IRC a lot. Granted, mostly in libav-devel, but it's
also been in ffmpeg-devel between Clement, Hendrik, and myself. It's also been
beaten to death on libav's mailing list, and to a lesser extent on this one
while adding Ronald an I's patches (and indeed even a bug FFmpeg exposed was
fixed in the converter). I know certain FFmpeg devs listen on both
Libav's list and channel, and whom I've directly told about this before (I
can fish out some IRC logs tomorrow maybe, they a few months old now).
Indeed even the git repo does not claim anywhere that it is anything but generic,
and anything else is an (invalid) assumption you guys have made, without actually
taking any time to read anything in the repo.
Also, there's just common sense. Ronald works with the Chrome guys, who use FFmpeg,
who rely on this converter. It wouldn't make much sense for him to let it break with
FFmpeg, now would it?
I apologize, but really, it does come off as paranoia from you guys. It's frustrating.
You have two of its authors explicitly stating that it is meant to be generic and
bugs that FFmpeg exposes shall be fixed. I'm sure Martin will gladly also tell you th
More information about the ffmpeg-devel