[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] lavu/dict: Add new flag to allow multiple equal keys.

[wm4]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:41:40 +0100
Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:

> Am 25.03.16 um 18:48 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:  
> >> Am 25.03.16 um 17:56 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes:  
> >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:  
> >>>> Am 22.03.16 um 12:20 schrieb Thilo Borgmann:  
> >>>>> Am 22.03.16 um 11:45 schrieb wm4:  
> >>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:00:23 +0100
> >>>>>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> Am 13.03.16 um 15:08 schrieb wm4:  
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:13:21 +0100
> >>>>>>>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>> From a1d9ce388c69eabb256e6b351c2acd36d7f4076e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>>>>>>>> From: Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de>
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:52:17 +0100
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] lavu/dict: Add new flag to allow multiple equal keys.
> >>>>>>>>> [...]  
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Changing the semantics of AVDictionary just like this seems rather
> >>>>>>>> questionable...  
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It changes nothing for existing code, just adds a new feature. I don't
> >>>>>>> think it hurts anyone or anything...  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It only breaks basic assumptions about a basic data type...  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Although I don't share your thought about breaking a basic data type with that,
> >>>>> what would you suggest instead?  
> >>>>
> >>>> Pushed for no further suggestions and nobody else objected.
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> Just pushing without addressing concerns is not the way we usually try
> >>> to work here, just saying.  
> >>
> >> I think I have quite a good idea about the usual way we try to handle
> >> things here and I think I've addressed his concerns.  
> > 
> > If by addressing you mean disagreeing with the concern and doing nothing.  
> 
> Not at all. I proposed alternatives (alternatives which I don't like
> much but anyway) and I explicitly asked for his suggestions. Means, I
> actually tried to satisfy his concerns. Thus, I can't understand that
> you are saying I've ignored anything.
> 
> 
> >> He didn't like it which is of course ok. He did not continue discussing
> >> it nor did he proposed any alternative. He also did not pick up any of
> >> my thoughts. He also did not explicitly state that he thinks that it is
> >> not ok to apply it. He said it "seems rather questionable". Without
> >> further discussion (what I tried) and nobody else complaining about it,
> >> what do you think would be more appropriate than to wait for quite a
> >> long time until continuing?
> >>
> >> The usual way for him to prevent me pushing it would just have been to
> >> ask me to wait and I would have waited. Have you checked the dates of
> >> the replies and what I wrote before accusing me to just ignore concerns?
> >>  
> > 
> > Timing makes no difference. Its the only review you got, so even if
> > you ignore that, you didn't even get a "OK" from anyone else, which
> > for generic API should be mandatory.  
> 
> I can't see why you accuse me ignoring something again.
> 
> 
> > The least that would have been appropriate would be to ping the patch
> > asking for further comments, instead of just practically saying "I'm
> > done waiting and just pushing"
> > 
> > Not everyone has the time to answer within a day, so if someone
> > expressed a concern, the least one could do before pushing is asking
> > again, everything else feels rather disingenuous.  
> 
> First concern about this was stated on 13th.
> After my reply, there was silence for nine days.
> What would have been your assumption about his concerns after my reply?
> Mine was that he considers this not to be as critical enough for further
> discussion - means he might still dislike having multikey dictionaries
> but sees no reason in struggling about it.
> 
> I pinged the patch again on 22nd, and it took about one minute for wm4
> to address his concerns again. However, after me asking for his
> suggestions there was again silence for days. Also note that he did not
> stated his concerns more specifically than before.
> 
> So I waiting for around 12 days (including a ping) to get a more
> specific remark, counter-proposal, discussion or anything else than a
> basic concern. During that time wm4 was active and very well capable of
> immediate reply. Thus I assume that his attitude about this patch is not
> as bad as insisting not to apply.
> 
> I still really can't see a "I'm done waiting and just pushing" attitude
> from my side.

You were adding weird new public API just to internally parse some
really weird syntax. I hoped other would voice their concern too, but
nobody did, so who cares, I guess.

I guess I'm ok with this, because it means I can easily get in my own
low quality changes as well.