On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:51:54 +0100 u-9...@aetey.se wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 06:51:46AM +0100, wm4 wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:51:39 +0100 > > u-9...@aetey.se wrote: > > > > > Then abstracting a "mini-swscale" could become justifiable. > > > > And this is why we should probably reject this patch. > > What you wrote paints a horrifying future. > --^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Note that we would have this discussion even if it'd speed up the h264 > > decoder. Pissing all over modularization is not a good thing to do. > -----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > If you really want to get anything applied, you should probably try > > looking at outputting ycgco, which appears to be the native colorspace > > of the codec (and convert it vf_colorspace, I guess). > > Dear wm4, > > Your readiness to give feedback and your endeavor to keep the high quality > of the code are appreciated. Nevertheless: > > I kindly ask you to mind your use of disparaging terms > (emotionally charged expressions like "horrifying" or "pissing" > which attribute a negative quality or attitude to your opponent), > the corresponding phrases are marked above for your reference > > and please check your data. > > For additional information I would suggest > > https://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Code-of-conduct > > https://multimedia.cx/mirror/cinepak.txt > > the contents of this thread
Nevertheless your patches are rejected. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
