Le sextidi 16 prairial, an CCXXV, Daniel Kučera a écrit : > Ok, I see only suggestions and ideas here. If you have any exact > request for change in my patch, let me know.
I am not your foreman or anything like that, it is not my place to order you around. What I can tell you is that patches need to be good to be applied, and a patch that makes the code more complex when it could make it simpler cannot be considered good. Of course "when it could make it simpler" is only speculation, but if somebody objects based on it, you will need to convince them otherwise, and for that you will probably need to have tried doing it that way. Furthermore, patches that make the code simpler are more likely to get quick reviews and eventually approval, because simpler code is also easier to review. And finally, I can tell you that a patch that breaks receiving empty packets for packet protocols cannot be accepted. > Btw, I suggest to include all these changes in one patch so there > won't be any single commit, which would be broken. And I strongly advise otherwise. The changes to make protocols return AVERROR_EOF instead of 0 are good and necessary all by themselves, individually and without the framework changes to catch the 0 return values. I am pretty confident that they do not break anything. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
