Quoting Soft Works (2022-08-25 00:19:33) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > > Jean-Baptiste Kempf > > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:39 PM > > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v5 00/25] Subtitle Filtering 2022 > > > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022, at 14:18, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Almost exactly identical objections to the basic aspects of the API > > were > > > raised independently by me, Lynne, and Hendrik. > > > IIUC Soft Works still refuses to address them (though it's not so > > easy > > > to tell in a 200-email thread). > > > > OK. I lost the lists of objections, then. > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President > > > Could everybody who still has any objection PLEASE name it with reasoning > and explain in which way it should be resolved?
Most of the main objections are mentioned in [1]. As far as I can tell, none of them were adequately addressed. > I wasn't refusing to make a change, but I have taken a lot of effort to > explain the reasons for that necessity. > I did that in several chats on IRC, on the ML, and recently, I have > written > an article especially to address that concern and better explain the > background: > > https://github.com/softworkz/SubtitleFilteringDemos/issues/1 > > It remained unresponded (but maybe unnoticed?). Sorry, but all explanations I've seen from you are walls of text from which I was never able to extract a solid argument that is not circular and does not leap to unsupported conclusions. And it is not just me, as far as I can tell, none of the others were convinced either. Frankly, you write too many words. A good argument about something like this should fit in a paragraph. Maybe followed by some extended explanations and clarifications, but the core of it should be quite short and right at the top, not buried under heaps of introductory remarks and examples. And if you cannot boil down your argument to a few words then maybe it's not a very strong one. > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022, at 14:18, Anton Khirnov wrote: > ... > > (though it's not so easy to tell in a 200-email thread) > > Yes that's true. For that reason it is not helpful to talk about > unspecified objections from more than half a year ago. You are the author of this set, it is _your_ job to keep track of what has and has not been addressed. And if you want reviews, you should also try to make things easy to review. > This is not further actionable without having a list of specific objections. > When nobody responds, we need to assume that there aren't any left. Or maybe people just got tired of repeating the same objections to the same patches being submitted again and again. [1] http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-December/288894.html Message-Id <mqaspff--...@lynne.ee> -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".
