On 22 October 2016 at 01:17, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, 20:05 Marton Balint, <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:36:27PM -0700, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote: > > >> From: Carlos Fernandez <car...@ccextractor.org> > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Carlos Fernandez <car...@ccextractor.org> > > >> --- > > >> libavcodec/avcodec.h | 1 + > > >> libavcodec/codec_desc.c | 6 ++++++ > > >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michael > > > LGTM > > > > Pushed with a minor whitespace fix. > > > > Regards, > > Marton > > _______________________________________________ > > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > > So all the objections to this patchset are now irrelevant are they? > > What a shameful way to run an Open Source project. > > Kieran > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >
That patch has been posted on the mailing list since July. You didn't reply to any patch to say why you think it's a bad idea. You just said that it's inappropriate once on IRC and didn't explain much as to why. You can't really expect to convince someone like that. The guy had to go through 14 versions to get something acceptable, which is one of the most I've seen, and the reviewers did have to do a lot of work to make it look fine. And I did look at the patch too and found nothing really wrong with it. In fact SMPTE KLV is implemented in a similar way. An open source project accepts a well reviewed patch, how is that shameful? Also mature projects are either dead or no one really uses/works on them willingly. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
