On 6/15/17, Thomas Mundt <tmund...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-06-15 21:23 GMT+02:00 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org>: > >> Le septidi 27 prairial, an CCXXV, Thomas Mundt a ecrit : >> > 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. >> > > I'm afraid the big picture might be to big for me. > The only thing I see that could be factored out is the delta for loop. And > even this would need much more investigation and testing form my side. > Unfortunately my time is too limited atm. > I think I understand your position, so I hope one day you will find the > time for the right fix.
Yeah, right! _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
