Quoting martin schitter (2024-10-22 01:40:07) > > > On 21.10.24 22:44, James Almer wrote: > > > > That's not good... > > > > [...] > > Whenever and however I change it, there will allways be somebody who > doesn't like it. !:( > > This time I spend a lot of time to modify the code as close as possible > to requests asked by one previous reviewer, who insisted, that for any > format that isn't already supported by a simple raw data pass though, I > have to add a fitting pixel format and the necessary input routines. > > In this version I did exactly follow this advice to finally get accepted. > > Only for those six formats, which need anyway some further processing, > because of a very uncommon bitpacking stucture used by DNxUncompressed > for 10 and 12bit formats, I still used some already available similar > planar formats. > > I personally still think it would wise to support just a minimal but > carefully and systematically chosen set of internal pixel formats for > lossless and efficient processing and avoid all other very similar > combinatorial possibilities, but those other reviewer strictly denied > this view.
You can refer to me by name you know, this passive-aggressive indirection isn't improving the discussion. But more importantly, I did NOT ask you to add native pixel formats for everything (and you're not doing it in this patch anyway), only use them when they exist, or add a non-alpha version of an existing format with alpha. -- 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".
