On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:28:27AM -0500, Dan Parrot wrote: > On Wed, 2016-07-06 at 09:07 +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: [...]
> > One other thing: why didn't this come up when the earlier patch was > submitted and applied? community patch review is not a reproduceable process, depending on who has time and does the review, different things can be found and pointed out, and people have also different oppinions. Real consistency can possibly only be achived by having an active maintainer that does all review ... To be more precisse the other patch was applied due to this comment IIRC: "If this patch works (FATE passes on ppc64) and is faster than the plain c functions then it can be committed as is" Also i have (too) done consulting jobs where the result was rejected by the community. What to do in that case? well, one is pissed first but one keeps that for oneself because it doesnt help anyone and anything and then either if its possible, economic and or interresting enough do what the community suggests OR if its not possible explain and discuss why the suggestion is not practical / ideal / dooable OR if its not economic and interresting enough accept thats how it is ... I have no idea what weight the bounty has to you if any. But it is certainly desireable to have someone maintain this code in the future or to find out why the speed gain on PPC is alot smaller than x86 from SIMD. How much these matter to the community to accept vs, reject a patch is the communities choice as there is no maintainer for the ppc code. If there was a maintainer then his oppinion would have great weight on what is need to get a patch accepted Either way, please everyone stay polite, calm and friendly, that is certainly the best way to resolve things IF there is a common ground [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
