On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:41:40 +0100 Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote:
> Am 25.03.16 um 18:48 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes: > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> > > wrote: > >> Am 25.03.16 um 17:56 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes: > >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Am 22.03.16 um 12:20 schrieb Thilo Borgmann: > >>>>> Am 22.03.16 um 11:45 schrieb wm4: > >>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:00:23 +0100 > >>>>>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Am 13.03.16 um 15:08 schrieb wm4: > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:13:21 +0100 > >>>>>>>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From a1d9ce388c69eabb256e6b351c2acd36d7f4076e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > >>>>>>>>> 2001 > >>>>>>>>> From: Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:52:17 +0100 > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] lavu/dict: Add new flag to allow multiple > >>>>>>>>> equal keys. > >>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Changing the semantics of AVDictionary just like this seems rather > >>>>>>>> questionable... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It changes nothing for existing code, just adds a new feature. I don't > >>>>>>> think it hurts anyone or anything... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It only breaks basic assumptions about a basic data type... > >>>>> > >>>>> Although I don't share your thought about breaking a basic data type > >>>>> with that, > >>>>> what would you suggest instead? > >>>> > >>>> Pushed for no further suggestions and nobody else objected. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Just pushing without addressing concerns is not the way we usually try > >>> to work here, just saying. > >> > >> I think I have quite a good idea about the usual way we try to handle > >> things here and I think I've addressed his concerns. > > > > If by addressing you mean disagreeing with the concern and doing nothing. > > Not at all. I proposed alternatives (alternatives which I don't like > much but anyway) and I explicitly asked for his suggestions. Means, I > actually tried to satisfy his concerns. Thus, I can't understand that > you are saying I've ignored anything. > > > >> He didn't like it which is of course ok. He did not continue discussing > >> it nor did he proposed any alternative. He also did not pick up any of > >> my thoughts. He also did not explicitly state that he thinks that it is > >> not ok to apply it. He said it "seems rather questionable". Without > >> further discussion (what I tried) and nobody else complaining about it, > >> what do you think would be more appropriate than to wait for quite a > >> long time until continuing? > >> > >> The usual way for him to prevent me pushing it would just have been to > >> ask me to wait and I would have waited. Have you checked the dates of > >> the replies and what I wrote before accusing me to just ignore concerns? > >> > > > > Timing makes no difference. Its the only review you got, so even if > > you ignore that, you didn't even get a "OK" from anyone else, which > > for generic API should be mandatory. > > I can't see why you accuse me ignoring something again. > > > > The least that would have been appropriate would be to ping the patch > > asking for further comments, instead of just practically saying "I'm > > done waiting and just pushing" > > > > Not everyone has the time to answer within a day, so if someone > > expressed a concern, the least one could do before pushing is asking > > again, everything else feels rather disingenuous. > > First concern about this was stated on 13th. > After my reply, there was silence for nine days. > What would have been your assumption about his concerns after my reply? > Mine was that he considers this not to be as critical enough for further > discussion - means he might still dislike having multikey dictionaries > but sees no reason in struggling about it. > > I pinged the patch again on 22nd, and it took about one minute for wm4 > to address his concerns again. However, after me asking for his > suggestions there was again silence for days. Also note that he did not > stated his concerns more specifically than before. > > So I waiting for around 12 days (including a ping) to get a more > specific remark, counter-proposal, discussion or anything else than a > basic concern. During that time wm4 was active and very well capable of > immediate reply. Thus I assume that his attitude about this patch is not > as bad as insisting not to apply. > > I still really can't see a "I'm done waiting and just pushing" attitude > from my side. You were adding weird new public API just to internally parse some really weird syntax. I hoped other would voice their concern too, but nobody did, so who cares, I guess. I guess I'm ok with this, because it means I can easily get in my own low quality changes as well. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
