On 2021-04-11 17:11, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2021-04-11 13:12:47)
On 2021-04-11 16:30, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2021-04-11 12:52:18)
On 2021-04-11 15:27, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Am So., 11. Apr. 2021 um 08:41 Uhr schrieb Gyan Doshi <g...@videolan.org>:
ffmpeg | branch: master | Gyan Doshi <ffm...@gyani.pro> | Sat Apr 10 16:35:53
2021 +0530| [47b8871ca6f9da4c0467466a43d204dec7fcbd4a] | committer: Gyan Doshi
doc/muxers: add entries for raw muxers
Is this really an improvement of our documentation?
Yes, the aim is to attain complete coverage.
Why? Empty documentation is useless. Useless documentation is worse than
no documentation, because it wastes your time.
The document registers their existence and allows someone to discover
their presence via web search. Most non-devs don't do `ffmpeg -muxers`.
Why would non-devs need that information?
Should they ever want to dump a bitstream into a bare file - the same
reason these muxers were added.
- will get out of date quickly
These elements change very slowly - there's hardly anything to change.
And no way to know which entries are outdate other than manually
checking them one by one.
The convention is to update the docs along with code patches.
For existing docs which don't reflect new or changed code, maintenance
is required. And it was while doing that, I noticed the lack of docs
for these muxers.
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-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
