Ronald, On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 02:38:31PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM, <u-9...@aetey.se> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:41:40PM +0100, u-9...@aetey.se wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:19:45PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > you may want to add yourself to MAINTAINERs (after talking with > > > > roberto, who i belive has less interrest in cinepak than you do > > > > nowadays) > > > > > > Sounds ok for me. Roberto, what do you think (if you read this)? > > > > The only address to him which I found (in an old commit) bounced, > > there was no reply here on the list either. > > > > Both can be a coincidence, but otherwise it looks like the change should > > be OK. > > > No. This has been discussed repeatedly. Stop trying to push this through.
My maintainership (for the code which I have contributed to, you may be unaware about this fact) was not discussed otherwise than cited here. Please check what you are commenting, especially when you mean to sound like having a definite power and being quite rude. What _has_ been discussed are the proposed Cinepak decoder improvements. There has not been even a single substantial technical argument against any version of the patch, nor any style/duplication argument against the last two versions. (Did you read the discussion? Did you check the validity of the presented arguments from all the involved parties, yours truly included? You did not say a word after I addressed your concerns.) This makes it even harder to put your statement into a proper context. Regards, Rune _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
