Leo Izen (12023-08-25):
> FWIW I read it the same way Anton did but if it's unclear then perhaps it
> could be modified. Essentially, I think what's going on is we don't want
> "NAK" without a reason. If you want to say a patch shouldn't make it in,
> there should at least be a reason.

I agree on this too.

> Even if the reason is "this API/module has no place in FFmpeg."

But not on this example: what has place in FFmpeg or not is anybody's
arbitrary opinion, saying “no place in FFmpeg” alone is just a fancy way
of saying “NAK” with no reason. It must be substantiated too, for
example “the same feature is already possible [like that]”.

And if the same feature is *not* already possible, then it surely means
the code *does* belong in FFmpeg.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George