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 96EED44F30 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C307668BD0D; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:53:40 +0200 (EET) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D9768B9FE for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:53:33 +0200 (EET) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 ( name = phare.normalesup.org ) Received: from phare.normalesup.org (phare.normalesup.org [129.199.129.80]) by nef.ens.fr (8.14.4/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id 2B9FrXSc019981 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:53:33 +0100 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5292BE0082; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:53:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:53:33 +0100 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: <20221209154055.21165-1-derek.buitenhuis@gmail.com> <48b7be12-0fba-823e-f632-70ca0fa310b8@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48b7be12-0fba-823e-f632-70ca0fa310b8@gmail.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Fri, 09 Dec 2022 16:53:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat: Rename IPFS to IPFS gateway 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: Derek Buitenhuis (12022-12-09): > My intent was to rename in case we ever got an actual IPFS implementation, > but I have no strong opinion on whether to keep this part of the patch or > not. Even if we do, the names are local, they do not conflict. > My personal preference is verbosity here, but it's not a strong preference. I do not insist on this. Maybe verbosity is best. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".