> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > Nicolas George > Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2021 10:05 > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg- > de...@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] Add option for writing > detailed filtergraph information to file or stdout > > Soft Works (12021-08-26): > > Does that answer your question? > > Yes. It is almost exactly what I had guessed. And therefore my answer > is > what I expected it do be: that does not justify thousands, or even > hundreds, of lines of code in the core library and tools.
I'm getting confused. While I've been going through your recent submissions, I noticed your proposals from April: - lavu: new AVWriter API - lavu: add a JSON writer API - et. al. There's no doubt for me that this proposal is a good thing, especially when it would be able to replace the ffprobe writers eventually. (I have once another project where I just duplicated the ffprobe writers because they weren't easily reusable). So, nice work, I really appreciate that. What makes me wonder a bit: - I had written in the commit message that the output writers would need to be merged with the ffprobe writers - But you didn’t tell that you already got the solution "in your pocket" - Instead you criticized my patch for its LOC count, even though that is just made up from the output writers code duplication... I'm confused... softworkz _______________________________________________ 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".
