[FFmpeg-user] "documented implicitly" [was: Re: Why is format=rgb24 required after maskedmerge?]
list+ffmpeg-user at jdlh.com
Wed Aug 19 20:43:57 EEST 2020
On 2020-08-19 07:34, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> You are deeply confused about our filters.
> Any filter can change pixel formats to one that they accepts thus gbrp
> is picked instead of packed rgb, this is already documented
Wow, "documented implicitly". This is such a classic FFmpeg project
statement. The role of documentation is to explain, explicitly, at a
suitable level of detail. What does "documented implicitly" even mean?
I think this thread points out is that FFmpeg documentation is
inadequate. It is hard to prove a negative, but I suspect that the term
"pixel format" is not actually defined in the FFmpeg documentation. I
suspect that the statement, "Any filter can change pixel formats" is not
stated either. Certainly the maskedmerge filter documentation doesn't
mention pixel formats at all, much less say what pixel formats the
filter sets for its output.
I have attempted to improve the documentation, to make it explain
explicitly instead of fail to document. I encountered a great deal of
resistance to those patches, because they make the documentation more
explicit, because they have more words, and because documentation has so
little value in this project relative to executable code.
And yet "You are deeply confused about our filters". In other words, the
documentation has failed to explain to you what FFmpeg does, the project
has failed to write or welcome improved documentation, you do not
understand how FFmpeg works — and somehow this is your fault.
More information about the ffmpeg-user