From: Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg@gyani.pro>
To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] movenc: Add an option for hiding fragments at the end
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:45:32 +0530
Message-ID: <d6faa7cb-5107-403f-87d5-5d979cabf242@gyani.pro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e95d2a0c-eb25-2991-afe5-bdf271d0a403@obsproject.com>
On 2024-06-15 03:54 am, Dennis Sädtler via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On 2024-06-14 13:23, Gyan Doshi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024-06-14 04:35 pm, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>>> On 14/06/2024 12:44, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Gyan Doshi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-06-14 02:18 am, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Gyan Doshi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-13 06:20 pm, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd otherwise want to push this, but I'm not entirely satisfied
>>>>>>>> with the option name quite yet. I'm pondering if we should call
>>>>>>>> it "hybrid_fragmented" - any opinions, Dennis or Timo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about `resilient_mode` or `recoverable`?
>>>>>>> I agree that the how is secondary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are good suggestions as well - but I think I prefer
>>>>>> "hybrid_fragmented" still.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In theory, I guess one could implement resilient writing in a
>>>>>> number of different ways, whereas the hybrid
>>>>>> fragmented/non-fragmented only is one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So with a couple other voices agreeing with the name
>>>>>> "hybrid_fragmented", I'll post a new patch with the option in
>>>>>> that form - hopefully you don't object to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The term hybrid is not applicable here. The fragmented state is
>>>>> transient during writing and contingent in the finished artifact
>>>>> depending on how the writing process concluded.
>>>>> Hybrid implies both modes available e.g.. a hybrid vehicle can use
>>>>> both types of energy sources. The artifact here will be one _or_
>>>>> the other.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the file itself is either or, but the process of writing will
>>>> have utilized both. TBH, I don't see it as such a black-or-white
>>>> thing.
>>>>
>>>> What do the others who have chimed in on the thread think, compared
>>>> to calling it "recoverable" or "resilient_mode"?
>>>
>>> I don't have a super strong opinion on it, but out of the options
>>> provided, I'd prefer the hybrid_ one, since there's a good chance
>>> it'll become an established term now that OBS presents it quite
>>> publicly visible.
>>
>> The OBS dev intends to change the term:
>>
>> "Come up with a better name than "Hybrid MP4" that hopefully won't
>> confuse users"
>> https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/10608#issuecomment-2095222024
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gyan
>
> Now that it's merged and in the hands of users I don't have any
> intention of changing the name any more.
> We had some chats about about it, but nobody suggested anything that
> people agreed was better, so it stuck.
>
> While "resilient" certainly fits, it could equally apply to regular
> fragmented MP4 (e.g. vMix uses that terminology for fMP4 if I'm not
> mistaken).
> The important attribute with this approach is that it's resilient
> *and* compatible, and I'm still not sure how to get that across in
> name alone.
How about `failsafe`?
Regards,
Gyan
_______________________________________________
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".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-15 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-05 11:47 Martin Storsjö
2024-06-13 12:50 ` Martin Storsjö
2024-06-13 13:44 ` Timo Rothenpieler
2024-06-13 13:45 ` Gyan Doshi
2024-06-13 20:48 ` Martin Storsjö
2024-06-14 4:27 ` Gyan Doshi
2024-06-14 10:44 ` Martin Storsjö
2024-06-14 11:05 ` Timo Rothenpieler
2024-06-14 11:08 ` Martin Storsjö
2024-06-14 11:23 ` Gyan Doshi
2024-06-14 22:24 ` Dennis Sädtler via ffmpeg-devel
2024-06-15 9:15 ` Gyan Doshi [this message]
2024-06-17 10:38 ` Martin Storsjö
2024-06-17 12:41 ` Gyan Doshi via ffmpeg-devel
2024-06-19 12:34 ` Martin Storsjö
2024-06-19 12:38 ` Gyan Doshi
2024-06-13 19:41 ` Dennis Sädtler via ffmpeg-devel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d6faa7cb-5107-403f-87d5-5d979cabf242@gyani.pro \
--to=ffmpeg@gyani.pro \
--cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:
git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git
# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \
ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com
public-inbox-index ffmpegdev
Example config snippet for mirrors.
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git