On 29.01.2017 04:46, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hm ... So I guess I wasn't clear about this, but the reason I didn't reply > to other patches with log messages was not because I'm OK with, but simply > to keep the discussion contained in a single thread and not spam the list. > I'd prefer if the log msg disappeared from all fuzz-only checks...
Being a "fuzz-only check" is not a well-defined concept. Anything a fuzzer does could in principle also happen due to file corruption. For header parsing such errors could also happen if a file gets misdetected and thus a wrong demuxer is used. So what do you mean with "fuzz-only check"? For example, would you consider the error check I quoted in the other thread [1] a "fuzz-only check"? It's clear that you prefer fewer log messages than I do, but in the absence of a general consensus about this topic, every author/maintainer can decide which log messages are wanted in their own code. Best regards, Andreas 1: https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-January/206312.html _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
