Hi On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 11:09:00AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Alexander Strasser via ffmpeg-devel (2024-12-01 21:13:56) > > This is a fixed up version of the series I sent before. > > > > This worked for me on Ubuntu 20.04 but probably will break > > with older zlib versions as Hendrik pointed out in the > > previous thread. Either we must update zlib on affected > > FATE clients or add more .alt files to them as well. > > > > We could also go the further the "no_file_checksums" as > > was demonstrated by James' series. > > > > I still prefer this way because it's simpler and retains > > the value of the tests. >
[...] > > We should not be testing for bitexact output from code that is not under > our control and does not guarantee bitexactness. This is a odd statement, why is there "code that is not under our control" as a condition ? Without that you would have this: "We should not be testing for bitexact output from code that does not guarantee bitexactness." (which is a much cleaner statement) Does that mean that you want to have tests for bitexact output from code that does not guarantee bitexactness, as long as it is under our control ? IMHO We should fully test our code to the maximum it can be reliably&reproducably tested exceptions can be anything that has real world cost (maintaince burden, maintainer happyness or (time, space, memory)) But tests should not be rejected based on some condition that has no real world benefit Thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Let us carefully observe those good qualities wherein our enemies excel us and endeavor to excel them, by avoiding what is faulty, and imitating what is excellent in them. -- Plutarch
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
