[FFmpeg-devel] deduplicated [PATCH] Cinepak: speed up decoding several-fold, depending on the scenario, by supporting multiple output pixel formats.
u-9iep at aetey.se
u-9iep at aetey.se
Mon Mar 6 11:15:44 EET 2017
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 06:20:34PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi Rune,
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:26 PM, <u-9iep at aetey.se> wrote:
> > Ronald,
> > On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 02:38:31PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM, <u-9iep at aetey.se> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:41:40PM +0100, u-9iep at aetey.se wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:19:45PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > you may want to add yourself to MAINTAINERs (after talking with
> > > > > > roberto, who i belive has less interrest in cinepak than you do
> > > > > > nowadays)
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds ok for me. Roberto, what do you think (if you read this)?
> > > >
> > > > The only address to him which I found (in an old commit) bounced,
> > > > there was no reply here on the list either.
> > > >
> > > > Both can be a coincidence, but otherwise it looks like the change
> > should
> > > > be OK.
> > >
> > >
> > > No. This has been discussed repeatedly. Stop trying to push this through.
> > My maintainership (for the code which I have contributed to, you may be
> > unaware about this fact) was not discussed otherwise than cited here.
> > Please check what you are commenting,
> > especially when you mean to sound like having a definite power
> The rule is that a patch cannot be committed while a developer has
> outstanding comments. There's outstanding comments, including some from me.
> You said "the change should be OK", and I'm simply saying "no" to that,
> because it's not. The patch is not OK until review comments from other
> developers have been addressed by the patch submitter.
Thanks for the explanation Ronald,
1. Apparently you did not aim at the maintainership question.
It would be nice if you confirm this point,
to avoid further misunderstandings.
2. Would you cite the outstanding comment or comments about the patches
which you feel are valid and not addressed?
I kindly ask you check the latest iteration of the patch series
where I tried to summarize all discussion points in the containing
TL;DR: I do have respect for your work and competence.
Please do the same to others. Even if we all too often meet people
who lack in those areas, there are some exceptions.
To be fair your comments concerning the patches were among the most
detailed and friendly, this is appreciated!
But even your well meant comments happened to miss the point, being based
in unfounded assumptions. I answered and explained and there it stopped.
Frankly the only outstanding comments which I am aware of are of the kind
"you the patch submitter do not understand why 'this' is better than
The fact is that I _do_ understand why you believe that something is
better or not. I just do not feel a belief is sufficient per se.
I invited you and others to look at _what_ makes something better
or not and got literally no answers.
Besides of course
"imagine if someone else will do something else,
it would be terrible, thus you are leading us to hell" :)
or otherwise, citing literally:
"we know this code, we know it can do this, don't tell us it's not
possible" without specifying (and in fact misunderstanding) what
"this" we were talking about: making the speedup usable with an
unprepared application, which the overhelming majority of applications
are. Regrettably, the present code is not prepared nor meant to be able to.
The proposed code could, but this possiblity is now cut off,
just to avoid contention.
As a third example, your comment
"We [...] know it's unreasonable from a maintenance perspective".
The very presence of the cinepak decoder is a proof to the opposite
because it worked this way (generating two different pixel formats
inside the decoder) for years. Again, what "it's" we are talking about?
The same "it" in your mind as in the patch?
I went so long as to quantify/estimate the expected extra maintenance
burden while you did not even mention any tangible criteria.
This makes me doubt that you or others who commented have time to read
the answers or are prepared to expect competence of your counterparts.
Unfortunately this affects the quality of the judgement.
I do have respect for your work and competence.
Please do the same to others.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel