> > > Would you want something experimental like x262 to be part of the > > FFmpeg codebase, for us to have to maintain forever? If you don't limit > > scope then that is what would happen. > > x262 is another example of a fork, where the fork alone was not > popular/interesting enough to live on. If it were merged to x264, I am > fairly certain it would not be experimental anymore, and we'd have an > MPEG2 encoder which would scale much better to multiple cores than what we > have now in ffmpeg. >
Highly unlikely, x264 development has essentially ground to a halt. And people use H.264 a lot still. x262 works well enough for an old format like MPEG-2. There's no real need to develop it unless someone needs to eke out an extra 2% compression because they have a million MPEG-2 receivers they can't change. The original x264 developers didn't want a merge back by the way. And I'd also like to point to the linux kernel as an example of a > monolitic code repository which seems to work quite well. > Exception that proves the rule. A lot of developers there are paid full time to work on the kernel and just do cleanup, merge old patches etc. Kieran _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
