Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v5 00/25] Subtitle Filtering 2022

[Soft Works <softworkz@hotmail.com>]

________________________________________
From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> on behalf of Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:18 PM
To: ffmpeg-devel
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v5 00/25] Subtitle Filtering 2022

Quoting Jean-Baptiste Kempf (2022-08-21 12:41:20)
>
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022, at 11:41, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > We should more forward and merge this considerable subtitle work
>
> Are there parts of this work that have reach majority consensus?

Almost exactly identical objections to the basic aspects of the API were
raised independently by me, Lynne, and Hendrik.
IIUC Soft Works still refuses to address them (though it's not so easy
to tell in a 200-email thread).

---

Anton,

thanks for the reply. Please correct me if I'm wrong. From my memory
and understanding, the one any only remaining point of discussion was
the necessity to have a separate field for subtitle start PTS in addition to
the AVFrame's PTS field.

I wasn't refusing to make a change, but I have taken a lot of effort to 
explain the reasons for that necessity.
I did that in several chats on IRC, on the ML, and recently, I have written 
an article especially to address that concern and better explain the 
background:

https://github.com/softworkz/SubtitleFilteringDemos/issues/1

It remained unresponded (but maybe unnoticed?).

Bottom line is that without having the separate subtitle pts field,
the whole patchset cannot work.

@Anton: you said the reason for this is because I would have 
designed it like this. But this not the case. The reason why this
field is needed it due to the way how libavfilter is designed to 
work.
The only way to avoid that second field would be to fundamentally
rework the scheduling of frames in filter graphs and making changes
to a core part like that (which is working pretty well and reliably btw)
would impose a huge risk of regressions and incompatibilities 
(it's more a guarantee for issues rather than an abstract risk only),
which doesn't make any sense to do at this time and in this 
context.

My conclusion is that having that one additional field in AVFrame
is by far the better option.

Please let me know what you think should be done and what kind
of concern you have with regards to the additional field in AVFrame.
It might not qualify as a top candidate for "API Beauty", but it's none
of the worst ones either.
Your preceding arguments were based on the assumption that it
could easily be avoided. I hope the referenced article helps to 
understand why it can't (without fundamental changes to libavfilter).

Please also let me know whether there are any other objections or
desired changes and I'll try to address them. I am in no way refusing
to make changes, as long as they are feasible.

Thanks,
softworkz

PS: Please excuse potentially bad e.mail formatting, I'm off-site

 














_______________________________________________
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".