Le septidi 27 prairial, an CCXXV, Thomas Mundt a écrit : > Hmm, before rewriting and sending this patch I asked if it would have a > chance to be pushed just to fix the ticket which is open for a very long > time. Your answer gave me the assumtion that you´re okay with it. > I thought your only concern was the not allowed use of pkt_duration.
I am ok in principle with a patch that uses the frame rate instead of the correct final timestamp. But not any such patch. I am not ok with a patch that makes the code more complex. I will at some point start again working on this, and any extra code complexity will make my life harder. In particular, I am never ok with a patch that copy-pastes and duplicates a non-trivial block of code. In fact, even if your patch was perfect in its logic, i.e. used the correct final timestamp, I would reject it based on the code complexity and duplication. As I said : the moment you used the "copy" feature of your editor on a non-trivial block of code, you should have stopped and taken a step back to look at the big picture. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
