On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:02:50 +0200 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:51:53 pm wm4 wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:46:12 +0200 > > > > Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: > > > On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:42:30 pm Nicolas George wrote: > > > > Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit : > > > > > But please allow me to repeat my question: Why do > > > > > think the new demuxer should be used? What sample > > > > > does it fix? > > > > > > > > Why do you think it should NOT be used? > > > > > > The main reason imo is that it is (apparently, I may > > > of course be wrong) not intended to fix anything but > > > just to remove a demuxer that has seen many (man-) > > > years of testing. > > > > The new demuxer was written based on the official ASF spec, > > I am not sure what you are trying to say here... > > > and was tested against a number of real world samples. > > Please share the samples, I would also like to test! > > > Also, the code being old is really meaningless here. The old > > demuxer didn't handle all files well either and it's probably > > full of bugs. > > Are you thinking of a specific issue? > As said, it seems to me that the new demuxer does not fix any > issue that the old demuxer has. > > > > From a very quick look, the new code seems mostly > > > unreviewed > > > > This is wrong. > > From a very cursory look, I saw things like: > > int a = 0; > int b = 1; > a = 0; > > ... > > //Set dts > pts = ... > > I of course do not claim that these issues are important but > I believe that code that is intended to replace existing code > should have a slightly higher standard. > > > The code has been in review for several months before it > > was finally merged. > > I of course cannot really comment on this claim but this is > not what I felt happened on avconv-devel. > > > > which makes me think that it can't really > > > be tested. > > > > This makes literally no sense at all. None. > > The reviews appear to have been very cursory, no sample was > named that got fixed: Why do you think that any testing > was done? > > > > Do you disagree? Do you know of samples that work > > > better with the new demuxer? > > > > It is known that it fixed some samples. > > So you apparently did more testing than me. That's great, > please share "some samples"! > > (And no, a link to trac is not a wild claim.) Unlike you, I don't think that the efforts o the Libav automatically don't matter. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
