Le jour du Génie, an CCXXIII, wm4 a écrit : > And just for the protocol, yes, I called it a terrible hack, but you agree > that it's an "ugly hack", so I'm not sure what I did wrong here.
Read Cyrano:
Je me les sers à moi-même avec assez de verve
Mais je ne permets pas qu'un autre me les serve.
(Get a translation if you do not know it already.)
And the insulting part was not just calling them hack but affirming that
"shouldn't have been done at all", i.e. calling my work useless.
> By implementing something as a hack, you put the burden on future
> generations of developers who somehow have to clean it up (instead of only
> having to implement it the right way),
This is a lie. As I have just explained, and therefore you just read, I have
made very sure that it was not the case: the hacks can be very easily
removed, I have made sure of that.
> and of course without causing any
> "regressions". (Which means pretty please duplicate all the fucked
> corner-casey up stuff that happened to work because of a specific
> implementation etc.)
>
> You know, I don't do this to argue with you to death or because I enjoy
> fighting
Yes, you do. Otherwise, you would avoid inflammatory language like in the
previous paragraph.
So please stop. Stop disparaging other people's work, stop spitting in the
soup, strop being altogether rude.
EOT for me, sorry Paul.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
