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 D76C8468AB for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 19:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1373E68C8E8; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 22:37:17 +0300 (EEST) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D80568C859 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 22:37:11 +0300 (EEST) 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 38LJb92Y024169 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:37:10 +0200 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C26AEE007C; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:37:09 +0200 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: <20230921162138.GP8640@pb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg release 6.1 (SDR Plans) 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: Vittorio Giovara (12023-09-21): > So this is an example of accusatory tone - discrediting the previous author > in order to make your arguments have more weight. It's a bad move and > easily spottable, you should argue with better elements at your disposal, > not by claiming that I don't package software or don't contribute to > libavfilter. You are misunderstanding my point completely, I am not accusing you of anything, I am merely using you as an example to show how your argument is flawed. I can take myself as an example instead, if you like it better: How much did *I* contribute to hardware acceleration? Zero! How much did *I* contribute to assembly optimization? Zero! How much do *I* intend to contribute to hardware acceleration? Zero! But now, however much I would like to, especially in libavfilter, I refrain from objecting to new features of hardware acceleration. Because I can make the difference between the things that benefit me and the things that are useful to many users and therefore good for the project. FFmpeg is made a of a lot of parts that are often very independent. That is on purpose: that way, if somebody is not interested in a part, they can just ignore it and let others work on it. And that is exactly what I am asking you to do: Just ignore SDR and let Michael work on it. SDR costs NOTHING except Michael's time, and Michael's time is his own to spend. For the rest of us, the grounds for objecting are the same NOTHING. > opinion on this release still stands: either a release with everything or a > release without the contentious piece of code, but not both. It's confusing > to the end users, and shows lack of direction of the project. On this we agree, making a second release without the feature just some people object to it would be a waste of Michael's time. -- 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".