Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Switching ffmpeg.c to a threaded architecture

[Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:58 PM Soft Works <softworkz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Paul
> > B Mahol
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:52 PM
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> > devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Switching ffmpeg.c to a threaded
> > architecture
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:10 PM Soft Works <softworkz@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> > > > Anton Khirnov
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:29 AM
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> > > > devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Switching ffmpeg.c to a threaded
> > > > architecture
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Soft Works (2022-04-08 17:27:10)
> > > > > > Furthermore, remember that this is just the first step. There
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > further patchsets converting the other components. I intend to
> > > > > > upstream
> > > > > > them gradually one after the other. Your suggestion would
> > require
> > > > me
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > instead write the whole thing at once, fighting rebase
> > conflicts
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > way, and then submit it as a giant utterly unreviewable
> > patchset.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not what I meant, but anyway it's not worth discussing
> > when
> > > > > it's a minority opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a practical question instead for planning purposes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Which timeframe do you expect for the whole process?
> > > > > When do you plan to start
> > > >
> > > > If you mean "start pushing the patches", then I intend to do that
> > as
> > > > they are reviewed and approved. I hope to send the upstreamable
> > > > version
> > > > of this set this week, if nobody has strong objectsions then I
> > might
> > > > push it after vacation, i.e. late April/early May.
> > > >
> > > > > and for how long do you think it will take until all further
> > > > patchsets
> > > > > will be submitted/applied?
> > > >
> > > > This is very hard to estimate accurately. A pessimistic guess
> > assuming
> > > > I
> > > > get stuck on every stupid thing would be end of this year, but I
> > hope
> > > > for things to go much faster.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply. I'm asking because I need to decide about the
> > > way I'm going to proceed with the subtitle filtering patchset.
> > >
> > > I think I will have to keep and continue this in private during this
> > > procedure as I don't have the resources to regularly adapt and sync
> > > from my (5.0 based) working branch back to the master branch.
> > >
> > >
> > That is big waste of resource when not implementing thing properly.
>
> From my point of view, somebody who has never given any detailed
> reviews, didn't state what exactly(!) he would consider to be "improper"
> and never made any suggestion how the implementation would need to
> be changed to become "proper" - doesn't have the right to make such
> claims.
>

You never asked kindly.


>
> softworkz
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
>
_______________________________________________
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".