From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E2E472BE for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8762687F5C; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:19:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A58EC68CA44 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:19:18 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC8C240490 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9kc9bx_Yv2bZ for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lain.khirnov.net (lain.khirnov.net [IPv6:2001:67c:1138:4306::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "lain.khirnov.net", Issuer "smtp.khirnov.net SMTP CA" (verified OK)) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D828B240445 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3A301601B9; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <20231003192258.GR5133@pb2> References: <20230707150654.GX1093384@pb2> <168889764928.542.505537875908829599@lain.khirnov.net> <20230922092754.GV8640@pb2> <169571962013.20400.259576230656271580@lain.khirnov.net> <20230926150947.GM3543730@pb2> <169574221973.6638.5162903459684406928@lain.khirnov.net> <20230926171630.GN3543730@pb2> <169575207748.6638.4929384189591808216@lain.khirnov.net> <20231003192258.GR5133@pb2> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 17:19:17 +0200 Message-ID: <169643275777.6638.11155765500467328776@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Release 6.1 X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-03 21:22:58) > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:14:37PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > You keep framing this as some kind of a personal campaign against you. > > It is not. From my perspective, the objections to SDR have been largely > > technical, and most of the "heat" comes from your refusal to accept that > > many active developers are against it. > > Technical arguments ? > Yes, several people had technical arguments, I remember Tomas and Remi and some > others. But at least subjectively i felt that the bulk of people where alot more > emotional than technical > > But let me list a few observations, from memory > First objection was because processing is done in an external library. > Then it was found out that was wrong and actually processing is done in the new code > so the objection flipped and people demanded it to be moved into an external library. > > If you object to pink and want blue and when you find out its actually blue you have > to be happy and become a supporter but what happened was the opposit, the objection > was simply adjusted to object to whatever was the case and demand whatever was not. > > Ok so thats at least one developers "Technical objection" down here, maybe more > i dont know if anyone else expressed that same initial objection. but lets move on > > In all cases we prefer not to have external dependancies, this is the Technical position of FFmpeg > no, there is no technical argument in this. > Also personal preferrances of people is not a technical argument. Noone explained why a > avdevice module with more external depandancies would be ok but a avdevice module with > fewer external depandancies was not. <-- This last sentance is a technical argument > I could go as far as call this a proof by contradiction. > > If people are happy with a avdevice module and FFmpeg prefers fewer external dependancies > then my suggestion of first starting with a plain simple self contained avdevice/avformat > module, would have to be fine too. > We can always move this to an external library once there is a technical reason for that > like for example some other software wants to use it > > About the attack/rallying/compaign stuff. Ill keep it very brief as its not useful i think. > Also this is my own personal and subjective view. In fact the whole mail is > There was alot of (negative) emotion from 1-2 people about SDR. This emotion was what spread > slash rallied other developers. That came before any technical arguments. > Now people have picked their flag and march to war. > > Everyone will deny it, same as every patriot will fight to the death for the colors of > the flag of the country and religion they where born into. > > My claim, sorry to be stubborn, is that had this started a slight bit different there > would be little opposition to SDR. Iam not denying that now there are several people > against it. These are largely unfalsifiable claims, so I don't see how they can productively contribute to this discussion. But dismissing people's concerns as "patriotic" or "religious" isn't helping your case IMO. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".