[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat/hls: remove unused function

[compn]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:20:57 +0200
Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:53:58 -0400
> > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:37 PM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:12:44 -0400
> >> > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:06 PM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:59:44 -0400
> >> >> > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> >> >> >> <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, wm4
> >> >> >> > <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 18.09.2015 15:09, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> >> >> >> >>> <gajjanagadde at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Fixes -Wunused-function from
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20150820031140&slot=arm64-darwin-clang-apple-5.1
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> >> >> >> >>>> <gajjanagadde at gmail.com> ---
> >> >> >> >>>>   libavformat/hls.c | 13 -------------
> >> >> >> >>>>   1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> diff --git a/libavformat/hls.c b/libavformat/hls.c
> >> >> >> >>>> index c16c770..2ea3a22 100644
> >> >> >> >>>> --- a/libavformat/hls.c
> >> >> >> >>>> +++ b/libavformat/hls.c
> >> >> >> >>>> @@ -495,19 +495,6 @@ static int
> >> >> >> >>>> ensure_playlist(HLSContext *c, struct playlist **pls,
> >> >> >> >>>> const char *url return 0;
> >> >> >> >>>>   }
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> -static int open_in(HLSContext *c, AVIOContext **in,
> >> >> >> >>>> const char *url) -{
> >> >> >> >>>> -    AVDictionary *tmp = NULL;
> >> >> >> >>>> -    int ret;
> >> >> >> >>>> -
> >> >> >> >>>> -    av_dict_copy(&tmp, c->avio_opts, 0);
> >> >> >> >>>> -
> >> >> >> >>>> -    ret = avio_open2(in, url, AVIO_FLAG_READ,
> >> >> >> >>>> c->interrupt_callback, &tmp);
> >> >> >> >>>> -
> >> >> >> >>>> -    av_dict_free(&tmp);
> >> >> >> >>>> -    return ret;
> >> >> >> >>>> -}
> >> >> >> >>>> -
> >> >> >> >>>>   static int url_connect(struct playlist *pls,
> >> >> >> >>>> AVDictionary *opts, AVDictionary *opts2)
> >> >> >> >>>>   {
> >> >> >> >>>>       AVDictionary *tmp = NULL;
> >> >> >> >>>> --
> >> >> >> >>>> 2.5.2
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> ping; wm4 basically did not like my old patch: see
> >> >> >> >>> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-August/177769.html
> >> >> >> >>> for his thoughts and my response. Here, I delete as
> >> >> >> >>> opposed to comment out the lines. I personally do not
> >> >> >> >>> care about deleting vs commenting out; but one of the
> >> >> >> >>> two should be used.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If you think the inactive code is worth keeping, put it
> >> >> >> >> into a git branch or tag the commit removing the code.t
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I do not have write access, so I will leave it up to you
> >> >> >> > (or anyone else pushing) to either apply the old patch or
> >> >> >> > this one (and possibly tag it if desired).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> See above for two possiblities on resolving this: either
> >> >> >> this patch (optionally tagging it), or simply commenting out
> >> >> >> the function (see above for link to old patch).
> >> >> >> Ping.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just get rid of this. I had to deal with the HLS code lately,
> >> >> > and it was utterly confusing that there was this unused
> >> >> > function.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Also, this function is so trivial, that anyone really needing
> >> >> > it could rewrite it in under a minute, and it'd probably be
> >> >> > an improvement too. Even discussing keeping this is a waste
> >> >> > of energy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please push this patch then; you have write access and I don't.
> >> >
> >> > Send your SSH key to Michael Niedermayer. I'll apply this patch
> >> > in a moment.
> >>
> >> Michael offered write access a month back, to which I replied
> >> saying that I do not trust myself with it at the moment and would
> >> like to wait a year. I also said that I would reconsider if it is
> >> leading to wasted maintainer time. Our back and forth here
> >> suggests that there is some wastage.
> >>
> >> If no one objects to me getting write access, I will send it to
> >> Michael. Please note that the intention right now is not for any
> >> "maintainership" duties, but simply to ease the application of
> >> reviewed patches.
> >
> > Yes, it's much better for everyone if you just push your own
> > patches, after they have been OK'ed.
> 
> Personally I find giving new people push access after only 3 months of
> activity slightly premature.

so if they have been around for 6 months its better?

i figure if anyone is here, reviewing patches, sending patches, using
the mailing list and following all of the written and unwritten rules,
thats good enough for write access.

@ganesh : getting write access does not require you to be a maintainer.
it will help reduce the current "patch monkeys" workload by having you
commit your own patches after review.

i'm not a maintainer of much and i have write access. i dont think i've
even committed anything this year to the main repo. so do not worry
about being idle. its no strain on us to add another developer to the
write list.

-compn