On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 31.08.2015 14:55, compn wrote: >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:19:02 +0200 >> Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On 31.08.2015 01:29, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun >>>> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> Before the release we should decide what to do with the asf_o >>>>> demuxer. Since it still crashes often, it's probably best to just >>>>> remove it. >>>>> >>>>> Does someone want to keep it? >>>> >>>> Yes, I want to keep it. >>> >>> Then you should get the crashes fixed. >>> >>>> It works much better for me than the old one. >>> >>> At least the old one doesn't crash. >> >> if it works for hendrik, then i vote for keeping asf_o. > > If Hendrik wants to use it, fine. But then he should also > take the responsibility and maintain it, i.e. fix the crashes.
So because I want to use a feature, as a downstream user, I have to maintain it now and take responsibility? What kind of convoluted logic is that? Do we ask our users to maintain the features they use now? > >> as long as its not default demuxer in ffmpeg, it wont hurt users. >> >> maybe we should have a codec_cap_experimental or >> format_cap_experimental on it or so > > Even non-default, experimental demuxers shouldn't crash, as > that's still a potential security risk. > I don't think releasing a demuxer with known crashes is > a good idea. > > Best regards, > Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
