From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 101274CE11 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4999968BC2E; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:33:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E167687AC8 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:32:57 +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 57B9WuJB021209 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:32:57 +0200 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DF8A52EFDD; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:32:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:32:56 +0200 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250811111935.GB506966@haasn.xyz> <20250811111812.GB506149@haasn.xyz> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavfi: protection against premultiplied alpha (was: The patch series about premultiplied alpha) 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: Niklas Haas (HE12025-08-11): > I still think this series overall is a step in the wrong direction; and that > our goal should be to move towards negotiation, and not towards some IMO hacky > flag that is already deprecated on arrival. In terms of work, this patch series is 5% trivial code easily removed and 95% work that is necessary for real negotiation. Which means this patch series is a step in the right direction anyway. > However, I decided I would rather just implement the full negotiation at this > point, to save ourselves the continued discussion; especially in light of the > TC's inaction / radio silence. > > Can you confirm that, if we implement full negotiation (thus allowing every > filter to decide for itself which alpha modes it can ingest), your remaining > your remaining objection to this series would be withdrawn? Of course. I suspect you widely underestimate the amount of work necessary for real negotiation, but I would be happy to be proven wrong on this issue. As I said multiple time, work on negotiation in libavfilter must start with adding test coverage to avoid breaking the myriad of corner cases that have been implemented over the years. I would be happy to review your patches in this direction. Feel free to take over the old preliminary ones I had posted a few years ago and never pushed. But whatever you choose, negotiation or hackish flag, I will stand firm on the fact that the default must be to protect users from creating invalid output. 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".