On 3/11/2015 9:36 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Thats analogous to saying "no its not important to put fuel in a > car, its important to drive the best car"
No what I propose is to look at both and decide which is best. Simply being submitted to FFmpeg first does not make it better. > the 2nd is more work, so i suggest that new code is based on top of > FFmpeg already. Merge/rebase that patchset from Libav if you want > to work on top of it. Yeah, merge one patchset in FFmpeg, and if it turns out the other functions better, the resulting mess is best summed up as "a clusterf*ck"... > The more code is rebased and merged around the higher the risk of > bugs This is a strawman argument (or perhaps just FUD). > Also if someone has testcases for all the new DCA features, i would > be interrested to have them so i can test these things if/when needed >From what I understand, neither of them implements fixed point yet in the core DCA decoder, which means neither is actually lossless or bit-exact. - Derek _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
