On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:44:22PM +0000, Derek Buitenhuis wrote: > 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.
you continue to talk about something completely unrelated to what i said/meant. you: take best code I: for code to be ever in FFmpeg it must either be developed on top of FFmpeg or it must be rebased/ merged/integrated at some point. Its better if its developed and tested on top of FFmpeg in the first place as this is less work and has a lower chance of bugs. The difference here is the "question" that is awnsered like in "there are 2 X implementations, which should we use" vs. "I want to write a X implementation, on top of what codebase should i do the work" > > > 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"... you really are missunderstanding what i meant I did not mean to suggest to push something to main FFmpeg master, i suggested or intended to suggest, that code be developeed on top of FFmpeg, code generally is developed by a devloper locally on his box or in his own public repo. > > > The more code is rebased and merged around the higher the risk of > > bugs > > This is a strawman argument (or perhaps just FUD). From your point of view its indeed a strawman, and from my point of view your arguments are a strawman because we just talk about 2 completely different things from the begin. > > > 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. ok, but do they implement something testable ? and if so, how can this be tested ? knowing this will be usefull to anyone working on the code [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
