On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 4:52 PM Tomas Härdin <tjop...@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> mån 2022-01-31 klockan 14:51 +0100 skrev Mark Gaiser: > > > > There are multiple ways to access files on the IPFS network. This > > patch series > > uses the gateway driven way. An IPFS node - by default - exposes a > > local > > gateway (say http://localhost:8080) which is then used to get content > > from IPFS. > > > Perhaps the protocol should be called something other than just ipfs if > it doesn't actually implement IPFS. Like ipfsgateway. It could still be > registered to ipfs:// of course, until someone writes a wrapper for > libipfs. > Do you mean to have it named like "ipfsgateway" as files (and library) but keep the protocol registration of ipfs and ipns? I'm fine with that. The name is only artificial in code anyhow, all that matters are the protocol names. Question though. In a V2 patch, would it make sense to squash everything in one commit? It's not that much anyhow. I have a feeling the current spliced patches give much appreciated feedback but also on parts that a later commit removed :) > > /Tomas > > _______________________________________________ > 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". > _______________________________________________ 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".
