On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:12:17 +0100 Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote:
> Am 25.03.16 um 21:12 schrieb wm4: > > 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. > > Which means my assumption about your attitude to this patch was not > totally wrong. Also you did not reply at all when I asked for your > suggestions. I don't particularly care for this issue (which is why I've mostly remained silent). I just wish we wouldn't change the public API in frivolous and tricky ways (such as suddenly allowing duplicate keys) without much discussion. > Which leads to a silent approval. Not at all. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
