On 8/31/15, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: > Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje <at> gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > > If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg > and show us how it's done better? > > Seriously: No matter which fair I visit, the users > always tell the same story. They liked avconv > because it promised so many things that could be > improved in FFmpeg and quickly switched, but in > the end they had to switch back to FFmpeg: Not > necessarily because of the bugs (they could > backport the fixes) but because of the missing > APIs (like VDPAU). > > I mean of course this all sounds incredibly > promising and while I found it far too good to be > true when you originally suggested it I couldn't > know for sure - after all, you could have been > right and succeed with the promises made. But why > you are still suggesting the same thing after > four years of undeniable proof that it is not > working is beyond me... > > I really don't understand why we don't spend > the time fixing real (user-reported) issues > instead of discussing how "clean" an api can > be...
API should be clean not "clean" and the one proposed is certainly not. It would be easy to report new and fix old bug reports if invalid closing of new bugs would not happen. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
