Am 25.03.16 um 21:59 schrieb Hendrik Leppkes: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:41 PM, 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. > > I didn't, I just stated that noone ever OKed your patch. > >> >> >>> 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 wouldn't make assumptions, I would explicitly ask.
Sorry I missed that in my previous answer. I asked: "Although I don't share your thought about breaking a basic data type with that, what would you suggest instead?" Maybe this is not explicit enough. Maybe silence form wm4 on that question was not explicit enough. -Thilo _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
