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

[Soft Works <softworkz@hotmail.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2022 9:36 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Cc: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>; Andriy Gelman
> <andriy.gelman@gmail.com>; Andreas Rheinhardt
> <andreas.rheinhardt@outlook.com>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v5 00/25] Subtitle Filtering 2022
> 
> Soft Works (12022-07-02):
> > This can easily be done AFTER my patchset has been merged.
> 
> With exponentially more work. Out of question.

Previously it would have been about like:

- Merging audio filter code with the video filter code
  (for the filters in question)

Now it will be

- Merging audio and subtitle filter code with the video filter code
  (for the same filters)

TBH, I can't see any exponent here. I think "double work" would be 
closer to the truth and realistically it will be much less than that 
because the work for merging audio and subtitle code is very similar,
so when you have merged audio code in a filter, merging the subtitle
part will be very analogous, so in total it would be less than 
double.

And when we look at the required amount of work in total, that 
calculation would only be valid when you would consider the value
of MY work that I've already done as zero. 

I even think that it's a better approach overall to do the deduplication
afterwards, because now - with the subtitle filtering patchset - the
specific requirements for subtitle filtering are visible on the table
and that way, the deduplication can already provision for those 
specific requirements whereas focusing on audio/video only, might have
led to do changes that wouldn't accommodate for the needs of subtitle 
filtering.

I am convinced that doing deduplication afterwards is a better order
for getting this done. I'm also convinced that my patchset is pretty
solid in the way it does handle subtitles, and I'm further convinced
that you know that very well. During all the process I have watched 
very closely, and in several cases where others had objections about
things I had done, you kept quiet, presumably because you were the only
other one to know why it had to be done that way. Also, you never 
named any specific detail that would be wrong, and I'm sure you would
have done if there had been any significant one.
My impression is that your primary reason for objection is that my
patchset interferes with your plans and visions you probably had in
mind for quite a while and I'm very sorry about that.
But in the end, my patchset doesn't stand in opposition to your plans,
it just requires a bit of adaption regarding the order of doing the work.
Neither do I stand in opposition to your plans. I respect the technical
architecture of libavfilter, especially regarding its simplicity and
effectivity compared to other filtering frameworks (like DirectShow)
and my interest in Ffmpeg filtering is not limited to subtitles. 
We don't need to be friends, but when you would manage to act and
communicate in a friendly way, you might gain somebody to help with
and support your plans in the future and you would also do a favor 
to all readers of the ML by not having them read through despicable
conversations.

Best regards,
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".