On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:23:50PM +0100, wm4 wrote: > > Still, given the disapproval of the "code quality" without a tangible > > criteria to follow, I can hardly take any accomodating steps, barring > > the omission of the unused code - would this step be enough? > > Bad: > - dead code
Already slated to be removed, I wrote. > - code duplication Would you give me an estimation of how many lines of code are actually duplicated. I believe you just see the superficial resemblance, not the differences. > - not using standard API mechanisms (get_format) You have to take this back and look at the patch. > - using unusual mechanisms that are normally not used in FFmpeg This is the whole point of the improvement. If doing unusual useful things is a bad style here, I am leaving :) I do not believe you really insist on this point. > libraries or libraries in general (configuration via getenv) Ehh, wasn't this the "dead code" you complained about above? Let's strike away this point. So the only remaining unsettled point is which lines of code are duplicated / how they are to be refactored. I wrote about this change not being exactly trivial. May be I am not fit for this particular task? Give me a hand, show how to do refactoring without impacting readability and speed? Otherwise it would be a pity to throw away an improvement just because the author has his/her limitations. > It's not so complicated if you make an effort to try to understand. Indeed. Friendly yours, Rune _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
