Hi Ronald, On 24.01.2016 14:06, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun < > andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Thus I object to reverting this before the regression caused by 31741ae is >> fixed. > > > This is ridiculous, I (who didn't break it and don't even have hw > supporting any of our hwaccel implementatons) already proposed a method to > fix it _properly_ (without introducing alternate regressions) that everyone > agreed to.
I'm not sure if the method you proposed would work. I don't know the hwaccel implementation very well, as I'm a mere user of that feature. > That is, everyone that responded. After a re-poke. And you > weren't one of them. And thus I haven't responded, yet. If you're confident that it will work, just give it a go. I'm happy to test patches. > Which makes me wonder, you're very good at objecting, Thanks for the compliment. > but you never give +1s on good ideas that are different (but better) than > your ideas. I never give '+1s', because I prefer to write full sentences, including some sort of explanation. Doing that requires to first figure out whether it could work, which can take a lot of time. > That's a terrible attitude. You're not perfect. Other people's ideas can be > better > than yours. Agreed. > Can you please look at my RFC in the related thread and comment > on the proposed fix? If you like it, that includes +1'ing it so I can > assume we have general consensus before I implement it and get bikeshedded > after doing work on it. I'm fine with any solution that makes VLC's hwaccels work again. So you can assume there is a general consensus for your suggestion, if it works. > And after you've done that, can we not bring this subject and 31741ae up > again? Fine with me. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
