Hi Nicolas, On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Le nonidi 19 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit : > > Ah, ok, so we did test it, and it didn't work. That sounds like an > amazing > > reason to remove it. Do we really want people to think corresponds to > > "FFmpeg quality"? I would be embarrassed if people pointed this out to > me. > > > > When people use FFmpeg, I want them to be filled with joy, not annoyed at > > our supposed incompetence. > > So basically, according to you, when a feature stops working, the mature > and > normal thing to do is to remove it? Does it apply to all features, or just > the ones that you personally do not care about it? > > Features can be removed when they are barely used and too expensive to > maintain, but that can not be a offhand decision. > > I hardly expect our users to be filled with joy if you decide arbitrarily > to > remove a feature they care about. Are there users that care about this feature? Why didn't they complain that it didn't work? More generally speaking, let's not make this yet another absurdum [1]. I'm more than happy for the codebase to contain tons of codecs that are useless to me, because they live in their own files. They do not complicate my life. I personally don't care much for the game formats we have, but I'm happy for them to be there, since they don't hurt me. This particular feature is a specific one where I vote - again - to remove it. This is not about who has the last word, it's simply - as you said - a matter of changing project policy. Ronald [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
