On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 18:16:49 +0100 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > > You still have time to address the arguments from wm4's review you > > skipped in your previous reply. You only sort-of answered to the "Is > > all this complexity really justified?" question. > > All the rest was only sub-questions to the big one: details about the > complexity. My answer stands: yes, all this complexity is justified, > every bit of it. Again, if all your patches were perfect, we wouldn't need to review your patches. Do you want exemption from patch review? > If you, or anybody else, want explanations on a certain detail, you can > ask, and I will answer. > > If wm4 wants explanations, "get used to disappointment". > > Or, to state it a different way: I consider "yes, all this complexity is > justified" to be the definite answer to all of wm4's remarks in this > discussion. If anybody else thinks some of wm4's remarks need > addressing, make them your own. From my point of view, wm4 no longer > exists in this discussion. Your going as far as denying my existence? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
