On 2020-08-16 18:27 +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Marton Balint (12020-08-16): > > Can we find a shorter name for the option? E.g. simply call the option > > auto_conversion_filters and the user can use -noauto_conversion_filters to > > disable it... In the next patch with the current name you have > > -nodisable_auto_coversion_filters which is really ugly IMHO.
I dislike the negative name too, because like mentioned by Marton it doesn't work well with overriding the option to turn it off. On one hand for this option in particular it wouldn't be that important, on the other hand it will be something (new) developers will see when writing tests and scratch their heads about it. > As I explained there: > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-August/267954.html > > the very long name is on purpose, it is meant to express this option is > only for rare technical use. I would prefer to stick with it if that is > fine with the others. I'm not convinced that using the long name on purpose is good here or in general. 1. It would not be so great to have to invent convenient names for every option that shouldn't be used "normally" 2. If users want to use an option they will use it no matter how long the name. (This is from experience, we had a very longish and worse named option in MPlayer for a similar reason.) Alexander _______________________________________________ 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".
